The Human Fallout: Educators' Perspectives about No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Implementation in Urban Schools

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LOS ANGELES The Human Fallout: Educators’ Perspectives about No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Implementation in Urban Schools DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in Educational Administration and Leadership by Tabia Lee Dissertation Committee: Professor Lawson Bush, V, Chair Professor Thurston Domina Professor Sharon Ulanoff Professor William Vega 2009 UMI Number: 3363314 Copyright 2009 by Lee, Tabia INFORMATION TO USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI® UMI Microform 3363314 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI48106-1346 © 2009 Tabia Lee The dissertation of Tabia Lee is approved and is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and in digital formats: University of California, Irvine California State University, Los Angeles 2009 11 DEDICATION To my mother, father, and all those alight by justice let this our lesson be We know how high-flying words can be deployed in the service of cynical aims, and how the noblest of sentiments can be subverted in the name of power, expedience, greed, or intolerance. Barack Obama The Audacity of Hope iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CURRICULUM VITAE ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Overview of the Chapter Statement of the Problem Research Goals and Questions Purpose and Significance of the Study Historical-Political Origins and Trajectory of NCLB Implementation Legislative Foundations of Standards-Based Accountability State Resistance to NCLB Implementation NCLB Implementation in California Administrative Accountability Teacher and Paraprofessional Accountability Student and Parent Accountability Choice/Transfer Options Charters/Vouchers Supplemental Services Standards-Based Assessments Wide Variations in State Standards and Assessments National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) NAEP Grade 8 Math Trends NAEP Grade 8 Reading Trends NAEP Grade 8 Writing Trends Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) AYP Score Trends California’s Academic Performance Index (API) NCLB “Growth Models” and “Differentiated Accountability” School Support/Consequences/Restructuring Restructuring Efforts in California Curricular Ramifications Trends in Student Performance Economically Disadvantaged Students Students of Color Gifted and Talented Students iv viii ix xi xiii xiv xv 1 1 3 5 6 7 8 19 22 23 25 29 32 34 37 38 41 42 44 47 50 53 54 56 58 59 62 63 64 65 67 68 Special Education Students ELL Students The Dropout Crisis Funding Manuscript Overview CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Overview of the Chapter Guiding Question for the Literature Review Description of the Literature Review Process Emergent Themes from the Literature Educational Choice and Equity Teacher Professionalism and Autonomy The Interests of Students and Communities Theoretical Assumptions Epistemological Orientation of the Author Critical Education Theory Liberatory Education Theory Discussion and Conclusions CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY Overview of the Chapter Methodological Assumptions Description of the Research Site Community and District Overview Educational Options Staffing Profile Student Demographics Organizational Insight The 2008-2009 LAUSD Budget Crisis and Organizational Culture AYP Profile UMS 2007-2008 English and Math CST Proficiency Levels UMS English and Math CST Proficiency Level Trends Method of Data Collection Selection of Participants Focus Group Survey Results Focus Group Protocol Development Description of the Data Analysis Process Protection of Participant Confidentiality Credibility/Trustworthiness and Ethical Issues CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS Overview of the Chapter 70 72 74 76 78 80 80 81 82 83 83 88 94 104 108 110 114 117 122 122 123 124 125 127 127 128 128 134 135 136 137 138 141 144 147 149 151 151 155 155 v Educational Choice and Equity Political Nature of NCLB Perceived Intentions of NCLB Failure as the Norm Federal Government and District Threats Lack of Funding Accountability for Whom? Teacher Accountability Paraprofessional Accountability Administrative Accountability Highly Qualified Administrators Parent Accountability Parent Understanding of NCLB Parent Involvement Skills for Parents Raising Pre-Adolescents Student Accountability Social Promotion Teacher Professionalism and Autonomy The Status of Education Prestige of Teaching Teacher Commitment to Urban Public Education Urban Teacher Preparation BTSA Program Professional Development Competing Definitions of Highly Qualified Teacher Out of Field Teaching NCLB Compliance Letters Sent Home Teacher Quality and NCLB Implementation Teacher Instructional Autonomy Narrowing of Curriculum Opinions about the Standards District Pacing Plans Opportunities for Reteaching and Holistic Education District Periodic Assessments Interests of Students and Communities National Benchmarks Class Size Disparities in Schools Access to Resources Preferential Funding for Charter Schools De facto Segregation Ignoring Social Inequities Deficiencies in Elementary Curriculum Highlighted Student Motivation Needs of Gifted Students Needs of Special Education Students Needs of ELL Students 155 156 157 159 160 162 164 165 166 168 169 172 174 176 182 185 186 189 189 191 193 195 198 202 203 206 207 209 211 212 216 218 221 223 225 225 226 227 229 230 232 235 238 241 243 248 vi Opinions about 100 Percent Proficiency Goals Defeatist Federal, State, and District Responses to Score Gains Standardized Tests as a Measure of Learning Progress The Need to Reassert Education Goals Larger than the Tests Messages to Politicians Reliability Matrix Summary Postlude: NCLB as a Scapegoat CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of the Study Purpose Procedures Research Questions Limitations and Generalizability Conclusions and Summary of Focus Group Findings Educational Choice and Equity Findings Teacher Professionalism and Autonomy Findings Interests of Students and Communities Findings Reauthorization Considerations Is it Effective? Strengthening NCLB Modifying NCLB American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) Radically Dismantling NCLB Implications and Recommendations Implications and Recommendations for Urban Schools and Districts Implications and Recommendations for Urban Parents and Students Implications and Recommendations for Urban Educators Implications and Recommendations for Policy Makers Contributions of the Present Study Directions for Future Research Concluding Remarks REFERENCES APPENDIX A: Glossary of Terms APPENDIX B: Focus Group Recruitment Script and Protocol APPENDIX C: Focus Group Interest Survey APPENDIX D: Focus Group Interview Protocol APPENDIX E: Observational Field Notes Template APPENDIX F: Follow-Up Interview Protocol 250 251 252 256 257 262 269 275 278 278 278 278 279 279 281 281 281 282 283 286 288 289 292 294 295 296 302 305 309 312 312 313 314 352 384 386 387 390 391 vii LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 California’s Intermediate English Goals for Elementary and Middle Schools/Districts California’s Intermediate Math Goals for Elementary and Middle Schools/Districts California API Growth Targets UMS Initial SLC Organizational Structure UMS Revised SLC Organizational Structure Focus Groups and Participant Selection Screens 55 Figure 2 56 58 129 130 142 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 viii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Percentage of Eligible Students Participating in Title I Supplemental Educational Services and School Choice, by Demographic Categories, 2004-2005 Summary of Assessments Administered by the State of California 2008-2009 Math NAEP Grade 8 Students Scoring Proficient and Above 2003-2007 Reading NAEP Grade 8 Students Scoring Proficient and Above 2003-2007 Writing NAEP Grade 8 Students Scoring Proficient and Above 2002-2007 NCLB PI Sanctions for Title I Schools California Title I PI Status: Statewide Summary of Schools 2008-2009 Percentages of California Economically Disadvantaged Students Scoring at Proficient and Above in English and Math CSTs 2003-2008 Percentages of California Students of Color Scoring at Proficient and Above in English and Math CSTs 2003-2008 35 Table 2 39 45 Table 3 Table 4 48 Table 5 51 Table 6 Table 7 61 63 Table 8 66 Table 9 68 Table 10 Percentages of California Students with Disabilities Scoring at Proficient or Above in English and Math CAPAs 20032008 Table 11 Percentages of California ELL Students Scoring at Proficient or Above in English and Math CSTs 2003-2008 Table 12 Summary of Themes, Sources, and Limitations Discussed in the Literature Review Table 13 Summary of Theoretical Assumptions Table 14 UMS Community Demographics 2008 71 73 117 120 125 ix Table 15 District 5 CST Proficiency Levels in Math and English 20072008 Table 16 UMS CST Proficiency Levels for CST Math and English 2007-2008 Table 17 UMS Proficiency Levels Trends for the CST, CAPA, and API Table 18 Data Collection Timeline Table 19 Focus Group Participant Characteristics Table 20 Focus Group Reliability Matrix 126 137 138 140 146 264 x ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS A Nation at Risk A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform, 1983 report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education America 2000: An Education Strategy of 1991 Academic Performance Index American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Advancement Via Individual Determination Adequate Yearly Progress Business Roundtable Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program California High School Exit Exam California Alternate Performance Assessment California Achievement Test 6 California Department of Education California Dropout Research Project Center on Education Policy California Modified Assessment California Standards Test Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 English Language Learner Educational Management Organizations Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 English as a Second Language America 2000 API ARRA AVID AYP BRT BTSA CAHSEE CAPA CAT-6 CDE CDRP CEP CMA CST EESA ELL EMO ESEA ESL xi Goals 2000 IDEA LAUSD LEA LEP Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Los Angeles Unified School District Local Educational Agency Limited English Proficiency (the term used in NCLB to designate ELL Students) National Assessment of Educational Progress National Assessment Governing Board National Education Association National Commission on Excellence in Education National Center for Education Statistics No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Professional Development Program Improvement California Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 Schools and Staffing Survey Socioeconomic Status Schools in Need of Improvement Urban Middle School, the pseudonym for the school featured in this study Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 United States Department of Education United Teachers Los Angeles NAEP NAGB NEA NCEE NCES NCLB PD PI PSAA SASS SES SINI UMS USA PATRIOT Act USDE UTLA xii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I thank my mother and father for instilling in me the value of social justice for all; they taught me that to stand by idly when injustice occurs is to enable and support corruption. I am also thankful to Mitternacht and my iPod for being constant companions throughout many late nights of reading, transcribing, and writing. Next, I recognize the members of my committee for their support of this research endeavor. Most influential throughout the process were my California State University professors whose tireless dedication and commitment to mentoring novice scholars was evident throughout the process. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Lawson Bush V, whose commitment to his students and the goals of this unique program to produce transformational educational leaders is unparalleled; the existence of this study is the direct result of the continual academic, moral, and motivational support of Dr. Bush. The courses of Dr. Dawn R. Person, Dr. Anna M. Ortiz, and Dr. William Vega at California State University, Long Beach helped encourage the vision of educational leadership for organizational change. The courses of Dr. Sharon Ulanoff, Dr. Ruth Johnson, and Dr. Lawson Bush V at California State University, Los Angeles reminded me of the importance of always linking theory to praxis; in addition, I extend my appreciation to others like Dr. Chogollah Maroufi whose classes I did not have the opportunity to take but who also provided support and guidance throughout the process. I am also thankful for the support of my UC Irvine extended family; I acknowledge Dr. Thurston Domina for his policy expertise and Dr. Kim Pierce, Leora Fellus, and Dr. Nancy Christensen for their tireless support and advocacy for students. In addition, thank you to Dr. Michael W. Apple who not only took the time to read my proposal, but offered me insightful comments and an ear to bounce ideas off of as needed throughout the process. Finally, thank you to those fellow educators who remain in the trenches day after day, who wake up each morning to serve in our embattled schools, and who invigorate me to continue to make a difference by raising the critical consciousness of educational policymakers. xiii CURRICULUM VITAE Tabia Lee 1999 B.A. in Sociology, Social Deviance, University of California, Davis 1999-2009 Middle School Teacher, Los Angeles Unified School District 2003-2009 Reviewer, Corwin Press (A division of SAGE Publications) 2003 National Board Certification: Early Adolescence Social Studies/History 2004-2009 Member, Pi Lambda Theta International Honor Society and Professional Association in Education 2004 2004 2006 M.A. in Education, Curriculum and Instruction, University of Phoenix Certificate in Gifted Education University of California, Riverside National Board Certification: Early Adolescence English/Language Arts 2007-2009 Founder/Facilitator, National Board Certification Support Network 2008 Founder/Facilitator Rocks the Vote Campaign whereby middle school students registered over 100 eligible voters in the community for the 2008 General election 2008-2009 Founder/Facilitator, Yearlong Professional Development Program for Teachers of Urban Gifted English Language Learners 2009 Presenter, Educating Gifted Students in an Urban Environment: A OneDay Conference on Gifted/Talented Education Los Angeles, CA Ed.D. in Educational Leadership and Administration, Emphasis in Urban Educational Leadership, University of California, Irvine & California State University, Los Angeles FIELD OF STUDY Urban Educational Leadership Transformational Organizational Reform Urban Teacher Education and Preparation Culturally and Linguistically Liberatory Teaching Education for Critical Citizenship, Social Change, and Global Betterment 2009 xiv ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION The Human Fallout: Educators’ Perspectives about No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Implementation in Urban Schools By Tabia Lee Doctor of Education in Educational Administration and Leadership University of California, Irvine, 2009 California State University, Los Angeles, 2009 Professor Lawson Bush, V, Chair The goal of this qualitative politically-oriented action research is to describe the lived experiences and perceptions of urban educators in relation to NCLB implementation. The broad research question guiding this study is: How has NCLB implementation affected the daily life of (a) classroom teachers, (b) out-of-the-classroom teachers, and (c) administrators at an urban middle school (e.g. pedagogically, socioemotionally, professionally, curricularly, ad infinitum)? In addition, it is anticipated that the experiences of urban educators will provide insight into effects on communities and students. Accordingly, this study illuminates the psychosocioemotional fallout of NCLB implementation in urban schools; NCLB is the latest reincarnation of longstanding efforts to reconstruct American public education via educational policy maneuvers that continue to evolve and impact urban schools in a heretofore unforeseen magnitude with the ultimate aim of nationalization, privatization, and corporatization of public education. xv Grounded in Applean Critical Education and Freirean Liberatory Education theories, this study comprised of 7 departmentalized focus group interviews features the voices of 33 Los Angeles public middle school educators and provides a forum for critical reflective expression related to NCLB implementation. In addition, 7 follow-up member check interviews were conducted whereby a thematic reliability matrix was coconstructed and discussed to identify emergent discussion themes. This study concludes that there are significant concerns, deficiencies, and harmful consequences related to NCLB implementation in urban schools that far outweigh any potential benefits lauded by supporters. Specifically, NCLB implementation is having negative effects in urban schools in terms of (a) educational choice and equity, (b) teacher professionalism and autonomy, and (c) the interests of students and communities. Little is known about how urban middle school educators are experiencing changes related to NCLB implementation yet the 111th Congress will consider whether to reauthorize or repeal this legislation. This study sought to bring the experiences of urban educators to light in order to better inform fellow educators, administrators, community members, and policy makers of the realities occurring in schools during NCLB implementation. Implications and recommendations for educators, schools and districts, parents and students, and local, state, and federal policymakers include a discussion of reauthorization and repeal options. xvi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Overview of the Chapter In early 2009 as a stunned American citizenry rather passively observed the authorization of $700 billion of their hard earned tax dollars to provide financial bailouts for even more corporate industries, there was no bailout in sight for the urban public schools of America suffering under the unfunded mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). In October 2008, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) became law when it was included in the Public Law 110-343; this legislation allotted no emergency stabilization funds to educational institutions even as public school Superintendents sounded the alarm. For example, in an e-mail message to all employees, David L. Brewer III, Superintendent of Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), one of the largest urban school districts in the Nation, issued this dire warning: Our shared challenge, however, lies in protecting and sustaining our student achievement gains in the face of what former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan calls a “once in a century credit tsunami.” This global economic debacle is hitting everything from the state budget to city government to the grocery bill. State Controller John Chiang said the recently approved state budget was “out of balance from the moment it was signed,” in part, due to “Enron-style accounting tricks.” Thus, the District must make difficult changes right now because of these grim financial realities beyond our control. The situation is particularly urgent because California’s financial picture is getting worse every day. The Governor has called for an emergency legislative session in November, and we anticipate their actions could swell the District’s current $375 million deficit to more than a half-billion, which would require even steeper, potentially devastating mid-year slashing. We cannot allow this deepening state budget emergency to drive the District into bankruptcy. Without substantial, systematic, responsible District-wide cuts and help from Sacramento, LAUSD will not be able to make payroll by the end of the next school year. Not for teachers. Not for librarians. Not for principals. Not for cafeteria workers. Not for bus drivers. Not for the staff at the local district offices or the Beaudry headquarters. No one would get paid. (personal communication, October 31, 2008) 1 Muolo (2009) noted that like the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act of 2001, EESA resulted in increased power allotted to the Federal government and was passed in record time and with little serious debate in Congress; in addition to being the largest bailout in U.S. history, the scope of its potential application far exceeds the mortgage and credit industries as it provides the Treasury Department with a significant expansion of power including the ability to bail out counties and cities that may have suffered increased difficulties related to the economic crisis (giving them the ability to buy “troubled assets” from these entities extending beyond mortgages). However, there was strong symbolism in the fact that no mention was made of the numerous troubled schools and districts in the initial allocation considerations. In addition to not suggesting that the educational sector be included or considered in the hastily signed EESA, the 2009 Presidential Budget appropriations for NCLB signified a final kiss off to American educators from President George W. Bush who, in addition to having a 33% approval rating upon surrendering the White House to 44th President Barack Obama, had grown notorious for underfunding the various mandates outlined in NCLB. The funding gap in the 2009 Presidential Budget appropriations for NCLB was well documented by the National Education Association (NEA). There was a cumulative gap of over $80 billion between funding authorized and allocated by Presidential Budgets since NCLB enactment and the Bush budget request for 2009 was projected $3.1 billion below the level of funding required to keep place with inflation and enrollment growth estimations; as of 2008, there was a cumulative gap of over $50 billion between funding authorized and appropriated under Title I-A Grants to Local Educational Agencies (NEA, 2008b, 2008c, 2008d). 2 The lack of necessary funding, increased instances of global warfare and strife demanding increased budgetary appropriations towards the aims of basic National selfpreservation, and state budget crises looming nationwide lead one to consider whether NCLB reauthorization is a fiscally or morally responsible decision. It is hoped that this study will encourage the reader to consider the voices of urban public school educators in arriving at a conclusion. Clearly there are emergent difficulties related to NCLB implementation. This chapter outlines the problem statement, research goals, questions, purpose, and significance of this study. It also provides a discussion of the historical-political origins and trajectory of NCLB implementation in terms of state responses to federal mandates as well as various facets related to understanding NCLB implementation in California. Statement of the Problem While the implementation has created a firestorm, NCLB was quietly signed into law in January of 2002. Similarly, in 2009, while the Nation was distracted by celebrity misadventures, incarcerations, and mass killings in American universities and throughout the Middle East, NCLB appears set for reauthorization by a Democrat dominated Congress amidst little fanfare or public notice. The No Child Left Behind Commission (2007) was celebrated as an independent, bipartisan effort that made symbolic gestures to include the voice of teachers and the public in its recommendations for the reauthorization of NCLB. The NCLB Commission of 2007 was comprised of six national hearings involving a mere 46 witnesses coupled with six roundtable discussions held in Washington, DC involving 33 witnesses; the sparse number of witnesses demonstrated that the view of the public was once again only marginally considered. 3 Certainly, site visits to only four suburban schools nationwide to talk to teachers and principals demonstrated that the input of urban teachers was not duly considered in the development of the recommendations. This continual disconnect between policymaking and analysis and the social realities of stakeholders in urban schools stymies meaningful educational reform. Meanwhile, with a legalistic emphasis on accountability through standardized test-taking measures, the implementation of NCLB continues to effectively redefine the federal role in education, essentially placing the federal branch in a domineering position and providing the teeth needed to coerce compliance from States (Manna, 2006a). Recently scholars have called for the federal government to move beyond incentives and sanctions. For example, Mintrop (2008) suggested that “rather than wrestling with states on compliance issues, the federal government should set up system design competitions among states that encourage states to continuously upgrade their performance expectations as new capacities are opening up” (p. 149). Nevertheless, the current reality is that while the Act purports to herald inclusiveness, educational accountability, and academic excellence in theory, in practice it is an oxymoron of heretofore unimaginable proportions that rends the very fabric of American public education, particularly in urban schools where education is becoming more test-centered rather than student-centered and socioculturally relevant (Shealey, 2006). Indeed, even cursory investigations involving narrative analysis of urban educators further emphasize the apparent disconnectedness between lawmakers and the realities of economic and cultural inequities facing public schools (Gerstl-Pepin, 2006). 4 As a National Board Certified English Teacher, Pi Lambda Theta Member, National Board Certified Social Studies Teacher, and Gifted/Talented Program Educator for nearly a decade at an East Los Angeles public middle school, I have witnessed the insipid demoralization of teachers and students engendered through the implementation of NCLB. I have watched and resisted as an ever-changing kaleidoscope of school administrators cave to federal accountability pressures passed on to them by the District. Too often, I observe the negative effects that an overemphasis on test preparation has on student engagement, motivation, and learning. This human fallout is oft overlooked in the body of NCLB implementation research or hyper-theorized. The current body of literature failed to capture the damaging social effects this policy was visiting on educators and students in urban public schools. Thus, critical politically-oriented action research was needed to illuminate the human experience of NCLB implementation. Research Goals and Questions The goal of this study was to raise the critical consciousness of participants and readers alike regarding the implementation of NCLB in urban schools. While there was a nearly tangible distaste for NCLB in almost any casual conversation held with urban educators, no studies were available to present those issues and concerns in a concise, informative manner. It was of particular importance to help educators and policymakers nationwide understand how this legislation was actually impacting the populations it purports to help the most. This study provided a forum for critical reflective expression related to this policy and sought to present and describe urban teacher perceptions. It was anticipated that participants would become invigorated to take social action and raise awareness about how the implementation of NCLB was affecting urban communities. 5 The broad research question guiding this study was: How has NCLB implementation affected the daily life of (a) classroom teachers, (b) out-of-the-classroom teachers, and (c) administrators at an urban middle school (e.g. pedagogically, socio-emotionally, professionally, curricularly, ad infinitum)? In addition, it was anticipated that the experiences of educators would provide insight into the impact NCLB implementation was having on urban communities and students. Purpose and Significance of the Study This study is located on the politically oriented spectrum of emergent action research methods in education and seeks to describe urban teacher perceptions of NCLB implementation. While it is not strictly participant centered political action research as envisioned in the early 60s and 70s, it does draw upon elements of those rich traditions for inspiration. Bogdan and Biklen (2007) noted that the purpose of politically oriented action research is promote social change and to “…conduct research that will help provide information that will help people who have the authority to develop programs and make other policy decisions”; the researcher acts as a citizen attempting to influence the political process through data collection about programs or policies with the goal of “…promoting social change that is consistent with the advocates’ beliefs” (p. 221). It was anticipated that the insertion of the actual voices of urban educators into the dialogue surrounding NCLB reauthorization would provide policymakers and fellow educators alike with important qualitative data to transformationally improve or encourage the repeal of this legislation. 6 Accordingly, this study illuminates the psychosocioemotional fallout of NCLB implementation in urban schools; NCLB is the latest reincarnation of longstanding efforts to reconstruct American public education via educational policy maneuvers that continue to evolve and impact urban schools in a heretofore unforeseen magnitude with the ultimate aim of nationalization, privatization, and corporatization of public education. Historical-Political Origins and Trajectory of NCLB Implementation NCLB was the result of over 40 years of federal wrangling for increased control over American public education reform in the name of educational equity and excellence. Dinan and Krane (2006) noted that the centralization and decentralization of federal power is nothing new; throughout American history legislative tensions between state and federal powers have been highlighted. However, as Cross (2004) noted, NCLB -a 2001 bipartisan reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), extant from 1965, was born of visceral frustration with State failure or refusal to uniformly implement or comply with previous legislative educational accountability requirements. Furthermore, Manna (2006b) found that such historically rooted tensions between state and federal jurisdictions continue to thwart progress in education as promised by NCLB because states continue to actively resist via legislative protest maneuvers that attempt to reassert state autonomy or subversive actions such as exploiting loopholes in the accountability benchmarks by setting low, widely varied targets for academic improvement. Ultimately, as Fusarelli (2004) and Uzzell (2005) argued, employing a centralized, top-heavy system to achieve nationalized outcomes is bad policy that cannot possibly produce equal outcomes. 7 Fundamentally, the expansion of federal power as a method of educational reform in the name of promoting equity is wrought with impediments. Nevertheless, public pressure upon politicians to create policies that improve American education persists. McGuinn (2006) outlined how incessant public demands to improve American schools increasingly politicize education; hence, while the implementation of policies related to ESEA and NCLB alike have been problematic, they continue to garner support. While NCLB was often celebrated as an achievement of bipartisan collaboration, DeBray (2006) suggested that the passage of NCLB largely succeeded as a direct result of appeals George W. Bush made to neoconservative factions of a Republican dominated Congress in 2001. Similarly, Gordon (2006) and Sunderman (2006) noted that the political climate in 2001 required numerous compromises resulting in the inclusion of both progressive and reactionary aspects that obscured the original good intentions of NCLB to increase educational quality and equity (also see DeBray-Pelot & McGuinn, 2009). This Act exemplifies an instance where high-flying words and well meaning intentions were subverted by greed, intolerance, and expedience. NCLB has only recently come under increased scrutiny and challenges related to high-stakes testing accountability measures are becoming more apparent; nevertheless, supporters of NCLB high-stakes testing claim that public support for the implementation of this legislation remains strong (Hess & Petrilli, 2006; Paige, 2006; Phelps, 2005; U.S. Department of Education [USDE], 2007). Legislative Foundations of Standards-Based Accountability Thus far in the implementation of NCLB, the primary instruments used to evaluate school performance and student learning are standards-based assessments. 8 The history of the standards-based accountability movement has already been well outlined and critiqued and as such is briefly summarized here in order to properly contextualize the present study (see Anyon, 1997; Berliner & Biddle, 1996; Guth et al., 1999; Koretz, 2008; Lipman, 2004; Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Sacks, 2001; Spring, 2007a, 2007b; Superfine, 2008 for detailed analyses). While many point to George W. Bush as the source that visited the hellish mandates of NCLB upon schools, the impetus for this movement was brewing while he was still a private sector oil industry executive in Texas. Perhaps the seedling legislative advocacy effort for the outcomes/standards-based movement was revealed in the now infamous 1983 report on education presented to then Secretary of Education T.H. Bell by the USDE National Commission on Excellence in Education (NCEE) entitled A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (A Nation at Risk). Some regard the activities of this commission as a lasting educational accomplishment of the Reagan Administration and nobody predicted that a less than 50page report would have such lasting impact. The introduction of the report divulged that the commission was created on August 26, 1981 as a direct result of public pressures and concerns Bell held regarding “the widespread public perception that something is seriously remiss in our educational system” (¶ 2). The commission reported that American students were lagging behind their international counterparts in terms of knowledge production and application. However, the NCEE (1983) was careful to clearly explicate the all encompassing scope of its vision for reforming American education: Our concern, however, goes well beyond matters such as industry and commerce. It also includes the intellectual, moral, and spiritual strengths of our people which knit together the very fabric of our society. 9 The people of the United States need to know the individuals in our society who do not possess the levels of skill, literacy, and training essential for this new era will be effectively disenfranchised, not simply from the material rewards that accompany competent performance, but also from the chance to participate fully in our national life. A high level of shared education is essential to a free, democratic society, and to the fostering of a common culture, especially in a country that prides itself on pluralism and individual freedom… We do not believe that a public commitment to excellence and educational reform must be made at the expense of a strong public commitment to the equitable treatment of our diverse population. The twin goals of equity and highquality schooling have profound and practical meaning for our economy and society, and we cannot permit one to yield to the other in principle or in practice. To do so would deny young people their chance to learn and live according to their aspirations and abilities. It would also lead to a generalized accommodation of mediocrity in our society on the one hand or the creation of an undemocratic elitism on the other. (The Risk section, ¶ 3; Excellence in Education section, ¶ 2) Thus, the commission recommended that in order to compete in the global marketplace, national standards were necessary for American schools. It is clear that the commission members believed that National standards were the pathway to increased global competitiveness as well as maintaining the American “way of life.” The inclusion of a discussion of the intellectual, moral, and spiritual strengths of “our people” is also particularly informative. One can only surmise that this comprehensive vision of shared education refers to the authors of the report and therefore was not and cannot be representative of the pluralistic society of all Americans. President George H.W. Bush, who often declared that he wanted to be remembered as the “education president,” remained committed to continuing the legacy set in motion by his predecessor Ronald Reagan. It was under George H.W. Bush that America 2000, the forerunner to Goals 2000 was developed. 10 In 1989, during the first year of his term as president George H.W. Bush convened two significant meetings to establish national educational goals; the first was with CEOs from the Business Roundtable (BRT) and the second was the seminal National Education Summit with state governors (interestingly, that summit was chaired by then Governor of Arkansas, William J. Clinton and resulted in the formation of the National Education Goals Panel in 1990 which included members of the BRT and National Governors Association) – Bush challenged both groups to help improve elementary and secondary education in America. Ravitch (1993a, 1993b) aptly predicted that the organizing efforts of George H.W. Bush in the late 80s to develop National Standards would prove historic. In fact, the efforts of George H.W. Bush resulted in a ten year commitment from the CEOs to form state coalitions (the “adopt a school” model) to influence education. To date, more than 40 states maintain these umbrella groups that form partnerships between business and educational leaders. Moreover, the USDE (1991) described business corporations as “vital” to the effort to reinventing American schools and anticipated that the business community would “…provide people and resources to help catalyze needed change in local schools, communities and state policies” (p. 33); the BRT was instrumental to the success of this populist crusade that formed the foundational structures for the New American Schools Corporation which was to produce a New Generation of American Schools via R & D Teams (see Appendix A for expanded definitions of all terms contained herein). 11 The vision for educational reinvention by the BRT and National Governor’s Association was further outlined in the 1991 Address to the Nation on the National Education Strategy by George H.W. Bush who stated: We ask only two things of these architects of our New American Schools: that their students meet the new national standards for the five core subjects, and that outside of the costs of initial research and development, the schools operate on a budget comparable to conventional schools. The architects of the New American Schools should break the mold. Build for the next century. Reinvent—literally start from scratch and reinvent the American school. No question should be off limits, no answers automatically assumed… There is a special place in inventing the New American School for the corporate community, for business and labor. And I invite you to work with us not simply to transform our schools but to transform every American adult into a student. Fortunately, we have a secret weapon in America’s colleges and universities—the finest in the entire world. The corporate community can take the lead by creating a voluntary private system of world-class standards for the workplace. Employers should set up skills centers where workers can seek advice and learn new skills. But most importantly, every company and ever labor union must bring the worker into the classroom and bring the classroom into the workplace. (¶ 24 and ¶ 25) The significance of these organizational events was even further marked by the comments of Rep. Lamar Alexander (who participated in the 1989 summit and subsequently served as Secretary of Education in the cabinet of George H.W. Bush) in a 2004 commemorative statement for The 1989 Education Summit on the Senate floor: When I became Education Secretary in 1991, we created something called America 2000, which was to try to move America community by community toward those national education goals. Governor Clinton became President Clinton, and he changed the name to Goals 2000 and tried his brand of moving us in that direction. Now we have another President, the son of a man for whom I worked, who has, through No Child Left Behind, working in a bipartisan way, tried to set from Washington accountability standards that will help make sure that all children are learning. 12 I rise to talk about this today only for this reason: That the national summit of governors and the President, on its 15th anniversary, should not go by without mentioning it on this floor. (¶12-13) Working in tandem, partnerships between politicians and businesses brought us to our current state of reform under NCLB. The partnership George H.W. Bush formed with the BRT was strategic because this organization remained relatively stable even as state, local, and national official terms ended. The BRT backed two initiatives that came under consideration during the Clinton Administration: Goals 2000: The Educate America Act (Goals 2000) and the less successful Schools to Work Opportunities Act (see Ohanian, 2000 for a historical-political delineation of Goals 2000). Thus, as presidential administrative priorities alternated between the superficial, symbolic labels of Republican and Democrat, the corporate infrastructure of influence remained highly functional. Indeed, any doubt that the intention of the NCEE and efforts of the BRT was to spur the establishment of academic standards was eliminated by the following statement from the USDE Goals 2000 Progress Report of 1996 which stated: Students and schools respond to the expectations set for them. Developing challenging academic standards is the linchpin of local and state improvement activities under GOALS 2000. Once developed, academic standards become a goal for students, teachers and parents, and provide a focal point for rigorous assessments, better curriculum and instruction, improved teacher training, and accountability. (p. 4) In 1994, President William J. Clinton reauthorized ESEA as the Improving America’s School Act and signed Goals 2000 into law. This legislation provided funding to states to voluntarily participate over a five-year period to help meet national education goals, the bulk of which were established by the National Education Goals Panel during the George H.W. Bush administration. 13 In 1994, the National Education Goals included 8 strands that focused on (a) ensuring every child entered school ready to learn, (b) increased high school graduation rates to 90 percent, (c) ensuring that students demonstrated competence in subject matter competence, (d) supporting the development of teachers, (e) raising math and science achievement to restore the preeminence of America in those fields, (f) increased literacy, (g) promotion of safe schools, and (h) the encouragement of parent involvement. States receiving the funds were required to convene improvement panels that would help develop, review, and modify their local education plans. While the purpose of Goals 2000 seemed broad in scope, the primary motive was to move the Nation closer to establishing National Standards for educational achievement and performance. Interestingly, under the leadership of Rod Paige USDE (2005a) outright identified Goals 2000 as the predecessor of NCLB (¶ 7). Stedman and Riddle (1998) noted that opposition to Goals 2000 was fierce and its Republican and Democrat opponents argued that it was merely an attempt to instill outcome-based reform that would nationalize or federalize education: While neither Goals 2000 or any other federal education legislation explicitly uses the term ‘outcome-based education,’ there are elements of both Goals 2000 and the 1994 amendments to ESEA Title I that are similar to this concept, at least in its abstract form. The requirements for states to set explicit content and pupil performance standards, and for local programs to be evaluated based on whether the standards are met, certainly imply a focus on pupil outcomes for accountability and other purposes. Further… the Goals themselves refer to educational outcomes. (p. 26) Opposition to Goals 2000 was so persistent that the act was repealed by the 105th Congress, ironically a mere two years before the year 2000. 14 The repeal decimated the USDE funding used to coordinate the restructuring efforts, eliminated state compliance requirements and progress report requirements involving the implementation of federal content and performance standards, removed requirements that States submit “improvement plans” demonstrating effort towards implementing the goals for approval by the Secretary of Education, and terminated the National Skills Standards Board. However, the National Goals Panel was left intact; this crucial factor kept the movement focused enough to bring us NCLB. Indeed, the forward to the USDE National Education Goals Report of 1993 assured readers that even as governorships and presidencies changed hands, the movement to attain the Goals by the year 2000 would press onward; the conclusion crystallized their vision for American education: High standards are the very heart of education reform in this country. They are reference points to be used by states and localities nationwide in developing renewed education systems that will be high-performing, equitable for all, and accountable. Think what reforms would look like without standards, without an agreement on what we expect from our students, and without a commitment that all students will be challenged to work with stimulating content, think critically about it, or use it in meaningful ways. (Conclusion section, ¶ 2) Even the background section of the 1994 USDE Progress of Education in the United States of America – 1990-1994 (which the authors informed us was a “preliminary report on the success of the reform movement”) celebrated the establishment of national educational goals. The progress report acknowledged that Federal law was constitutionally prohibited from prescribing a standardized curriculum and noted that constitutional provisions protecting state rights made reform challenging. 15 Nonetheless, the conclusion affirmed that the establishment of the National Education Goals “…has enabled the Nation for the first time in its history to develop standards of performance for all schools and to measure progress toward the achievement of those standards” (Conclusion section, ¶ 1). The authors of the progress report also noted that the task of reform “…is significantly complicated by the fact that methods of evaluation must be invented at the same time that solutions to the problems are being devised. Yet time does not permit a more leisurely and sequential way of proceeding” (Conclusion section, ¶ 1). Thus, the architects of this reform movement knew the difficulties that would lie ahead when attempting to concurrently create and implement national standards, standards-based assessments, and accountability systems but decided to hastily press onward anyhow with the idea that the ends would justify the means no matter the fallout in between. Clearly, the architects of this reform intended from the outset to redefine the role of the federal government in creating a vision for and setting the direction of American public schools. However, the unfortunate motivator of expedience has led to a deeply flawed implementation of this reform goal to restructure and nationalize American education. NCLB is merely the latest reincarnation of the same effort that was announced to us during the Ronald Reagan administration. To summarize, it is apparent that the goal of the BRT and National Education Goals Panel was to establish nationwide standards for education and a method of measuring student achievement of those standards that has led us to our current state of Standards-based accountability under NCLB. The standards were intentionally set at deliberately high levels in order to produce better workers for the global economy. 16 The USDE Goals 2000 Progress Report of 1996 informed readers that the movement to nationwide standards was “…intended as a powerful lever for changing American education” (Setting Standards: Becoming the Best section, ¶ 8) whereby “…standards must be deliberately set at high levels” (The Challenges Ahead: Developing Voluntary Nationwide Standards and Communicating with the American People section, ¶ 6) in order to compensate for the previously low expectations of the preceding decade: Without high standards we will not be able to rebuild America’s education system—they are absolutely pivotal if we are to thrive and prosper… The United States can and must have standards as good as, or better than, those of any other nation. But will we use these standards in a uniquely American way—as a blueprint, not a national curriculum—that inspires “education architects” in each community to design better systems of teaching and learning. (Building the Best Education System: The Need for Nationwide Standards section, ¶3 and ¶7) To clarify, the focus of this reform effort was not in fact to rebuild the American education system but to restructure it. Even statements made by its most celebrated progeny, George H.W. Bush confirm that the intent was to completely restructure the American education system. In a Joint Statement on the Education Summit with the Nation’s Government in Charlottesville, Virginia praising the success of the National Education Summit of 1989, on September 28, 1989 George H.W. Bush stated: We believe the time has come, for the first time in U.S. history, to establish clear, national performance goals, goals that will make us internationally competitive… We must make dramatic improvements in our education system. This cannot be done without a genuine, National, Bipartisan commitment to excellence and without a willingness to dramatically alter our system of education. There are many promising new ideas and strategies for restructuring education. These include greater choice for parents and students, greater authority and accountability for teachers and principals, alternative certification programs for teachers, and programs that systematically reward excellence and performance… As elected chief executives, we expect to be held accountable for progress in meeting the new additional goals and we expect to hold others accountable as well. 17 When goals are set and strategies for achieving them are adopted, we must establish clear measures of performance and then issue annual Report Cards on the progress of students, schools, the states, and the Federal Government. Over the last few days we have humbly walked in the footsteps of Thomas Jefferson. We have started down a promising path. We have entered into a compact—a Jeffersonian compact to enlighten our children and the children of generations to come. The time for rhetoric is past; the time for performance is now. (Introduction section, ¶ 2, Commitment to Restructuring section, ¶ 2 and ¶ 4, Assuring Accountability section, ¶ 1) While the claims of these efforts symbolizing a Jeffersonian compact are certainly dubious, there is no doubt that the concerted efforts of these committed individuals has indeed forever altered the landscape of American education. The theme of international competition was restated by George H.W. Bush and has been echoed by every politician supporting this movement for the past 20 years. The focus on restructuring the education system of America in order to produce competent workers that can compete in, or dominate the global market harkens back to the language of A Nation at Risk and serves as a reminder that global competition, not education is the primary concern. Additionally, a quotation from President George W. Bush in a 2006 USDE report entitled Answering the Challenge of a Changing World: Strengthening Education for the 21st Century reaffirmed the thrust of this orientation: We need to encourage children to take more math and science and to make sure those courses are rigorous enough to compete with other nations… If we ensure that America’s children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world. (p. 1) Clearly, the impetus for reform is maintaining American global dominance in the competitive worldwide marketplace and not a focus on knowledge building or improving the learning of American students. 18 While George W. Bush is undoubtedly an enthusiastic scion of the vision his father set for educational reform, it has been sufficiently outlined here that road to NCLB was not tilled by one madman seeking to vilify and control the American public education system while trampling on Constitutional limits to federal power (however see Healy & Lynch, 2006 for a detailed discussion of the expansion of federal power under the administration of George W. Bush). NCLB was not the work of one man and this is a common error of attribution that not only gives one person far too much credit, but its inaccuracy clouds the clarity required to understand the complexity involved. Make no mistake, the effort to restructure the American public education system has involved the vast coordination of corporate and political players some of whom were well meaning and suckered into the high-flying words and goals of achievement for all, and others who were self-serving and seeking to produce better workers in order to strengthen the positions of their corporations in local and international marketplaces. NCLB is part of a long-standing effort to reform American education at the national level and it has strengthened the position of the federal government to envision and enforce educational reform in an unprecedented manner. State Resistance to NCLB Implementation Parents, teachers, businesses, civic groups, and districts nationwide have launched various forms of resistance to NCLB since its implementation began to rollout in 2002. The challenges to NCLB have centered on the issues of federal authority, individual rights and provision enforcement, conflicts within the law, and unfunded mandates. 19 By 2005, within a mere first two years of its implementation, at least seven lawsuits seeking clarification regarding the provisions of NCLB had been unsuccessfully waged: (a) Reading School District v. Department of Education challenged federal authority to label schools as failing when appropriate supports had not been provided, (b) Association of Community Organizations and Reform Now v. New York City Department of Education, Fresh Start Academy v. Toledo Board of Education, Kegerreis v. United States, and Coachella Valley Unified School District v. State of California (currently on its third round of appeal) were brought by a parent group, private business, teacher, and school district respectively and challenged individual rights issues and provision enforcement, and finally, (c) Californians for Justice Education Fund v. California Board of Education and Board of Education of Ottowa Township High School District 140 v. USDE argued that there were conflicts within the law (Donahoo & Greer, 2006).Two significant cases remain in appeal status as of early 2009; Pontiac School District v. Secretary of the United States Department of Education and State of Connecticut v. Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education (under appeal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals) both argued that NCLB implementation presents unfunded mandates to school districts and questioned interpretations Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has made of the Act. In addition, the State of Utah was an early frontrunner in the opposition to NCLB, citing unfunded mandates and a host of difficulties it would encounter related to implementing NCLB even in the face of a stern letter from the Acting Deputy Secretary warning that the State would stand to lose over $70 million in direct Title I funds and that programs receiving and Title I allocations would also be affected if it elected to opt out (E.W. Hickok, personal communication, February 6, 2004). 20 In addition to the sampling summation of significant cases listed above, there are observable trends regarding state implementation of NCLB. Due to the efforts outlined in the previous section, by the time NCLB implementation began in 2002, most States had already adopted content standards in Math, English, and Science. For example, Clarke (2007) noted that at the time NCLB was signed into law there was considerable variation among the student populations that States included in their assessments and only sixteen states performed annual Reading and Math tests for students in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school; many states (like California) opted to preserve their pre-NCLB rating systems resulting in contradictory evaluations of performance in addition to increased instances of adopting high-stakes tests for students and declining instances of rewards systems for high-performing schools. In addition, Clarke found that State responses to NCLB were strongly determined by how well the new mandates meshed with the reforms States were already in the process of making and her analysis of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; see Appendix A for expanded definition) test scores preand post NCLB implementation (1998-2003) revealed an insignificant narrowing of the Black-White achievement gap—she suggested “if the law could be coordinated with broader economic and social policies that address the out-of-school factors, overall gains on standardized tests eventually might be accompanied by a genuine and sustained shrinking of the achievement gap” (p. 169). This is a compelling suggestion because current efforts to raise student achievement in order to close the achievement gap solely focus on in the classroom factors that are barriers to achievement while ignoring the plethora of socio-economic factors at play. Surely, a child facing hunger, homelessness, poverty, or absent parents in the home is being left behind. 21 Similarly, Loveless (2006) identified six levels of resistance States have exhibited towards NCLB: (a) Utah and Connecticut were the only two States in the Union that had rejected NCLB outright or established statewide circumvention at the time of his study, (b) Nine States established local opt-outs or some form of legislative action/protest had occurred, (c) Eight States had opt-out legislation pending that had not yet been passed into law, (d) Fifteen states, including California, had introduced legislation related to NCLB but thus far none related to opting-out, (e) Five states had introduced legislation which was defeated and, (f) Eleven States were neutral or supportive of NCLB (p. 27). The trends in State compliance offer great insight into how well the law is being received. NCLB Implementation in California Across the nation, State officials are beginning to come to the terms with the fact that the majority of their populace will likely fail to meet the goals outlined for them by the USDE under NCLB but it is clear that accountability is here to stay. Armour-Garb (2008) suggested that in addition to complying with the law or evading the law, at this moment States have a unique opportunity to figure “…out how to do accountability right” (p. 1). Little Hoover Commission (2008) echoed that sentiment and noted that in the next two years, fewer than half the schools in California will meet the NCLB performance requirements. While the preface of NCLB stated it was “an act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice so that no child is left behind” it begs the question of accountability for whom? Thus, in this section a discussion of what is contained in NCLB with respect to accountability for administrators, teachers, paraprofessionals, students, and parents and how California responded to aspects of NCLB implementation compared with other states is explored. 22 Administrative Accountability While administrators are mentioned in various sections of NCLB, it is always in reference to their function of overseeing that the law is followed along with several references to collaborating with teachers and community members to enact various programs or tasks related to NCLB implementation; No description of how administrative accountability actually looks (such as those for sections describing teacher and paraprofessional accountability) exists but it is clear that the role of administrators is being redefined during its implementation (however, it should be noted that U.S.C. 20 § 6601(1) does provide grants for “improving teacher and principal quality and increasing the number of highly qualified teachers in the classroom and highly qualified principals and assistant principals in schools” even if the Act fails to define highly qualified principals). Hunt (2008) outlined the profound impact that the Standards movement grounded in A Nation at Risk has had on administrators and suggested that it has lead them to become more personally involved in school improvement planning; furthermore, he suggested that the administrators of today are more driven by the stick of sanctions than the carrot of financial incentives that were a part of past reform movements. Farkas, Johnson, Syat, and Vine (2003) noted that the various requirements of NCLB implementation were a source of resentment for superintendents and principals alike and almost 9 in 10 voiced a “major concern” that NCLB is an unfunded mandate. Lips and Feinberg (2007) discussed how the implementation of NCLB has resulted in an increased administrative burden for state and local authorities in terms of administrative costs related to compliance and a massive paperwork burden. 23 In a similar vein, Reitzug, West, and Angel (2008) questioned whether the pervasive influence of NCLB was reasserting the traditional instructional leadership role of principals “… as principals sacrifice the long-term gains resulting from teacher professional growth, for the short-term goals of an ‘inspect and direct’ instructional leadership role” (p. 695). There are many different approaches a principal or superintendent can take to lead their staff throughout NCLB implementation and the choices they make have an affect on student achievement. This was confirmed by Gibbings (2008) who examined the leadership strategies and practices that successful urban superintendents in California used to improve student achievement after the passage of NCLB. Now more than ever, American schools need highly qualified administrators who advocate not only for excellence but for just treatment of teachers, students, and communities. Because they are charged with leading schools through this reform, it seems important to more clearly define the elements of effective superintendencies and principalships particularly for our embattled urban schools. Sarpy-Simpson (2007) acknowledged the changing role of the principal during the past decade and found that novice and veteran urban educators expect that an urban principal act as a transformational instructional leader by engaging in the following activities: (a) providing professional development opportunities, (b) suggesting teaching strategies for use in the classroom, (c) providing teachers with new trends in curriculum and instruction, and (d) communicating established guidelines for discipline in the classroom. Clearly, urban educators have expectations for the performance of urban principals even if NCLB fails to provide such desperately needed guidelines; highly qualified subordinates necessarily require qualified superiors. 24 Indeed, one of the recommendations of the No Child Left Behind Commission (2007) was the development of a “Highly Effective Principal” designation that would require principals to: (a) demonstrate growth in achievement of subgroups comparable to high achieving schools in their State with similar demographics, (b) obtain certification or licensure as required by their State, and (c) pass an assessment which may include a peer review that is administered by the State and includes the leadership skills of effective principals (p. 172). Perhaps faculty-based reviews could become a part of the administrative evaluation process. Teacher and Paraprofessional Accountability There are several national trends related to teacher accountability during NCLB implementation. For example, in 2007 the Center on Education Policy ([CEP], 2007c) found that States and Districts reported that the NCLB definition of highly qualified teacher was too narrowly focused on content knowledge; only one-third of the States reported they were on track to be in full compliance with NCLB requirements for teacher quality by the end of the 2006-2007 school year-- 83% reported difficulty complying with NCLB requirements for Special Education teachers and only five States reported that the distribution of experienced, well-qualified teachers in high-poverty schools and highstudent of color-enrollment schools had improved to a great extent since implementation. In addition, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), as of the 2007-2008 school year, while 41 States reported having formal professional development (PD) standards, only 24 States financed PD for all Districts and a mere 16 required Districts/schools to set aside time for PD; in addition, only 38 states offered incentives to teachers to earn National Board Certification (NCES, 2008j). 25 NCES (2008h) also found that as of the 2007-2008 school year only 27 states required substantial formal coursework in subject area(s) taught and while 39 required teachers to take basic skills written assessments, only 6 required subject-specific pedagogy assessments. Finally, NCES (2008i) reported that as of 2007-2008 only 5 States required parental notification of out-of-field teachers and 4 had a ban or cap on the number of outof-field teachers. NCLB implementation has resulted in several changes to teacher accountability requirements. In essence, NCLB invented national teacher accountability requirements. NCLB implementation marked the first time USDE dictated national teacher qualification requirements and required deadlines for State compliance (see Appendix A for NCLB highly qualified teacher definition). Riddle et al. (2007) outlined that prior to NCLB, ESEA did not have teacher quality requirements and only contained the general requirements that teacher aides and paraprofessionals hired with ESEA Title I funds earned a high school diploma or equivalent within two years of hiring. Riddle et al. noted NCLB required that beginning with the 2002-2003 school year teachers newly hired by Local Education Agencies (LEA) with Title I-A funds were “highly qualified” and that by the end of the 2005-2006 school year all teachers be highly qualified (see Appendix A for definitions of all terms). Additionally NCLB required that all paraprofessionals (except those providing translation or parent involvement services) newly hired by LEAs receiving Title I-A funding either must have completed a minimum of two years of higher education or must have both demonstrated knowledge of reading, math, and writing as well as the ability to assist with instruction in those subjects via a State or local academic assessment (20 U.S.C. § 6319(c); USDE, Non-Reg. Guidance, March 1, 2004). 26 In addition, NCLB required that LEAs failing to meet test score requirements “replace the school staff who are relevant to the failure to make adequate yearly progress” (20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(7)(C)(iv)(1)). Crisafulli (2006) argued that this provision of the law will is unfair because it may cause tenured teachers to “…suffer an illegitimate job loss for failing to meet unattainable standards” (p. 636). NCLB implementation has resulted in the lessening of State and local District control and authority regarding hiring practices. Implementation has required that LEAs submit detailed plans for approval by the Secretary of Education outlining how they would intervene in District business to ensure that students of color are taught by “highly qualified teachers.” States must continue to revise and resubmit their plans until they are approved by the Secretary of Education in order to continue receiving Title I funding. Specifically, NCLB stated the plans must include: The specific steps the State educational agency will take to ensure that both schoolwide programs and targeted assistance schools provide instruction by highly qualified instructional staff as required by sections 1114(b)(1)(C) and 1115(c)(1)(E), including steps that the State educational agency will take to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers, and the measures that the State educational agency will use to evaluate and publicly report the progress of the State educational agency with respect to such steps. (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(8)(C)) California is known for its advancements in teacher preparation; the State was one of the first to develop Standards for the Teaching Profession (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing & California Department of Education [CDE], 1997). California has an impressive teacher workforce that is the largest in the Nation (more than 300,000 teachers) and serves a student population of over six million. 27 California has detailed its well-established mechanisms to support novice and veteran teachers (California State Board of Education & State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2006). Additionally, California is one of 22 States in the Union to require all new teachers to participate in a state-funded induction program, it is one of 25 States that requires all new teachers to participate in a state-funded mentoring program, and it is one of 20 States to have Standards for selecting, training, and/or matching mentors (NCES, 2008b). The Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA) of California is a rigorous, pre-NCLB teacher induction program (see Olebe, 2001 for a detailed description of the program) that has been shown to result in higher teacher retention rates (Mitchell et al., 2007; Mitchell, Scott, & Boyns, 2000; Shields, Esch, Young, & Humphrey, 2000; Strong & St. John, 2002). In addition to supporting novice teachers with a comprehensive PD program, the CDE also supports PD for veteran teachers. For example, California has shown strong support for National Board Certification and described its various supports and incentives for teachers to attain certification; it is noteworthy that “…50 percent of California NBCTs teach in the bottom half of all California Schools (determined by the Academic Performance Index). California is the national exception with regard to the equitable distribution of NBCTs” (California State Board of Education & State Superintendent of Public Instruction, 2006, p. 4). With these facts in mind, it is interesting to note that the Secretary of Education rejected the initial California Highly Qualified Teacher Plan. Each state whose plan is rejected by the Secretary receives a summative letter outlining perceived deficiencies and offering suggestions on improving the Plan to meet USDE interpretations of NCLB. 28 In a letter to the President of the California State Board of Education and Superintendent of Public Instruction, The Assistant Secretary explained, “…your plan had a number of deficiencies, including but not limited to the lack of a plan with specific steps adequate to ensure that poor and minority children are taught at the same rates as other children by highly qualified and experienced teachers” (H.L. Johnson, personal communication, August 15, 2006). In essence, even the State of California, with its well recognized support systems for teachers was unable to meet the USDE interpretation of NCLB. States with well established teacher quality mechanisms struggle to meet the rigorous interpretation of highly qualified teaching outlined in NCLB and interpreted by USDE. Student and Parent Accountability Like administrative accountability, NCLB provided no direct definition of student accountability or parent accountability. Without mechanisms built in to ensure the accountability of the population it is meant to transform, how will the populist crusade progress towards the America 2000 goals of building better lifelong worker-learners without holding them accountable? While NCLB does authorize the Secretary of Education to (a) establish a national clearinghouse and interagency group to collect data on the effectiveness of programs to which grant money is provided for reducing school dropout prevention and increasing school reentry and secondary school graduation rates, (b) carry out a national recognition program to recognize schools that have made extraordinary progress in lowering dropout rates, (c) contract with non-Federal entities towards the aforementioned aims, and (d) provide support to existing efforts working towards those aims (20 U.S.C. § 6555(a)-(d)) none of these activities directly relate to establishing, monitoring, or ensuring student accountability. 29 USDE noted that under NCLB, “for the first time in the history of ESEA, [parental involvement]… has a specific statutory definition” (Non-Reg. Guidance, April 23, 2004, p. 3). According to NCLB, parent involvement is defined as “the participation of parents in regular, two-way, and meaningful communication involving student academic learning and other school activities…” to include: (a) parents playing an integral role in assisting their child’s learning, (b) parent encouragement to me actively involved in their child’s education at school, (c) that parents are full partners in their child’s education and are included, as appropriate in decision-making and on advisory committees to assist in the education of their child, and (d) the carrying out of other activities such as those described in section 1118 of the law (20 U.S.C. § 7801(32)). Similarly, while numerous sections of the law mention parent involvement and prescribe several remedies for increasing or encouraging parent involvement and choice, none define or even discuss parent accountability for student achievement. For example, how are parents held accountable when their child fails to meet academic standards year after year? Must parents engage in any technical assistance, improvement plans, or corrective actions when their child fails to achieve? Unfortunately, NCLB defines parent involvement but fails to prescribe what will occur if parents choose not to be involved. It is presently unknown whether graduation requirements and testing efforts implemented in response to NCLB requirements have increased student accountability or the high school graduation rates. NCLB required that State accountability systems to “include graduation rates for public secondary school students (defined as the percentage of students who graduate from secondary school with a regular diploma in the standard number of years)” (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(C)(vi)). 30 However, States are under new regulations to adhere to a uniform graduation rate formula that excludes alternative paths to graduation and uses a “four-year adjusted cohort rate” or “extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate” no later than the 2011-2012 school year and must use a “transitional graduation rate” in the interim (73 Fed. Reg. 64,499, October 29, 2008; see Appendix A for definitions and USDE, Non-Reg. Guidance, October 29, 2008 for additional information regarding Uniform Graduation Rate). Under these new regulations, states must set a single, uniform graduation rate goal that “… represents the rate the State expects all high schools in the State to meet… [and must also form] annual graduation rate targets that reflect continuous and substantial improvement from the prior year toward meeting or exceeding the graduation rate” (73 Fed. Reg. 64,509, October 29, 2008). At the time of this study, it is still too early in implementation of these new regulations to determine any effects on student accountability or achievement. However, there are some interesting graduation requirement trends related to student accountability. In terms of High School Standards, as of 2008, nineteen States aligned their high school standards with college and workplace expectations and only nine had in place a P-20 longitudinal data system to track individual student progress (however, nearly 40 States including California were developing such a system); in addition, only four States held high schools accountable for graduating students college and career ready (NCES, 2008e). NCES (2007a) found that 37 States offered alternative paths to graduation for students with disabilities (California offers 3 alternative paths to graduation), 14 States offered alternative diplomas or certificates, 13 states offered alternative assessments to their high school exit exams, and 5 States offered waivers and exemptions. 31 Additionally, NCES (2008d) noted that as of 2007-2008 half of the States do not currently have a high school exit exam and nearly 10 States have High School exit exams that pre-date NCLB; in the State of California, student consequences related to the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) began for the class of 2006 so it is still too early to determine its effects. Choice/Transfer Options NCLB has been touted as heralding school choice and innovation; Title V is concerned with promoting informed parental choice and innovative programs. Students attending schools that are in school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring status must be given the option of “…(1) attending another public school or (2) receiving supplemental educational services, depending on the eligibility of the school” (USDE, Non-Reg. Guidance, Feb. 6, 2004, p. 3; see Appendix A for definitions of terms). However, there are other choice options outlined in NCLB. In fact, 20 U.S.C. § 7215 prescribed and offered funding for 27 innovative assistance programs that are intended to increase school choice options. Many of the suggested innovations are of the expected sort. These include items such as class size reduction activities and PD, programs to promote smaller learning communities, initiatives to promote and support parent involvement, technology implementation activities, programs for the development and acquisition of instructional materials, dropout prevention programs for the “educationally disadvantaged,” programs that promote adult and child literacy, and so forth. However, the causes of concern in the innovative program section are the more nebulous vortexes funding may be funneled into in effort to undermine current public school structures. 32 This includes vague innovations like: (a) “promising education reform projects, including magnet schools” (U.S.C. § 7215(a)(4)), (b) “the planning, design, and initial implementation of charter schools…” (U.S.C. § 7215(a)(8)), (c) “activities to promote, implement, or expand public school choice”(U.S.C. § 7215(a)(12)), and (d) ‘‘academic intervention programs that are operated jointly with community-based organizations and that support academic enrichment…” (U.S.C. § 7215(a)(17)). These elements are troublesome because they are left open to the interpretations of USDE which have been shown to be questionable at times. For example, who decides what a “promising education reform project” looks like? And what exactly are activities that promote or expand public school choice? Who decides what extremist churches, militias, or civic groups with hateful ideologies have access to children and furthermore that those entities are “highly qualified” enough to provide services that “support academic enrichment”? Once again, this is an instance where George W. Bush attempted to undermine the Constitutional separation between Church and State. In fact, Executive Order 13198, dated January 29, 2001 (issued a mere 9 days after inauguration) directed the Secretary of Education and directors of other departments to establish a Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in order to “…coordinate department efforts to eliminate regulatory, contracting, and other programmatic obstacles to the participation of faithbased and other community organizations in the provision of social services” (Section 2, ¶ 1). As a result of this presidential directive, USDE began to actively recruit faith-based organizations to offer “choices” to public school students under NCLB and it was noted: The [Bush] Administration believes that faith-based organizations possess an under-appreciated ability to meet the educational needs of disadvantaged children and to strengthen our system of education. 33 The Administration believes that federal agencies should ensure that there is equal opportunity for all private organizations—faith-based and secular—to use Federal resources to meet the needs of their communities. (69 Fed. Reg. 31,708, June 4, 2004) The infusion of faith-based organizations leaves many questions to be answered about the future of the secular, democratic nature of public schools. However, these are just a few of the questions emerging from the aforementioned innovations offered by NCLB. In addition, school choice innovations such as (a) “programs and activities that expand learning opportunities through best-practice models designed to improve classroom learning and teaching” (U.S.C. § 7215(a)(22)), and (b) “programs that employ researchbased cognitive and perceptual development approaches and rely on a diagnosticprescriptive model to improve students’ learning of academic content at the preschool, elementary, and secondary levels” (U.S.C. § 7215(a)(26)) cause us to revisit those all too familiar quandaries related to the persistent fact that “best practices” are relative; they are situational in nature. Best practices may vary from classroom to classroom, just as best ideologies, religious belief systems, and the like may vary from household to household. In addition, the diagnostic-prescriptive model is not always the best model to employ to enhance student achievement; the politicians truly need to leave the selection of curricular models to qualified professionals who are aware of learner characteristics and needs and equipped with the pedagogical knowledge base to select the most applicable model of instruction. Charter Schools/Vouchers While NCLB makes no specific mention of vouchers, many of the murky innovations mentioned previously could be used to request funding for voucher programs at the discretion of USDE. 34 For example, depending on who’s manning the appropriations approval stamp, vouchers could be interpreted as a “promising reform.” Because vouchers enable students to receive funds to go to any school selected by their parent, many of their proponents express that applying the “free market” model to schools will help increase achievement through competitiveness (see Buddin and Zimmer, 2005 for a debunking of this persistent myth). Notwithstanding NCLB implementation, for students of color in our urban schools “school choice” was and remains an illusion (Table 1 summarizes the percentages of students participating in school choice in 9 districts including Los Angeles Unified School District). In addition, Kahlenberg (2008) outlined how the choice provisions in NCLB are inadequate because many school Districts are lacking in “good schools” for students to transfer into. In order to better track services, beginning 2007-2008 local education agencies must post the number of students who were eligible and who participated in public school choice and supplemental services (34 C.F.R. § 200.39(c)(i)(ii)). Additionally, LEAs must now provide parents with 14-day notice of transfer options available to them (34 C.F.R. § 200.44(a)(2)). Table 1 Percentage of Eligible Students Participating in Title I Supplemental Educational Services and School Choice, by Demographic Categories, 2004-2005 Demographic Characteristic Students Participating in Supplemental Education Services Students Participating in School Choice 0.9% 0.4% 0.3% 0.4% 1.1% African-American 16.9% Hispanic 11.6% LEP students 13.1% Students with disabilities 14.6% White 10.1% Note. Data is from Zimmer et al. (2007) a National Longitudinal Study of NCLB Note. Data for one of the nine districts are for 2003-04 35 Proponents of NCLB argued that applying the “free market” model of competition to schools would increase student achievement. However, thus far in the implementation of NCLB, the choices remain reserved for the few with access to information. In addition, the “free market” argument is extremely misguided and troublesome for public schools because voucher systems can also be applied to private school attendance which opens the doors for faith-based organizations, corrupt corporations, and unsavory individuals to usurp the democratic nature of public schools (see Blume & Uhrich, 1998 and McCluskey, 2005 for discussions of several instances where voucher and charter school programs resulted in increased corrupt activities in schools). While vouchers were not directly mentioned in NCLB, an entire subsection was devoted to charter school establishment. The endeavor to supplant public schools with charter schools was made evident in that the stated purpose was “expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the Nation” (U.S.C. § 7221(3)) and “encouraging the States to provide support to charter schools for facilities financing in an amount more nearly commensurate to the amount the States have typically provided for traditional public schools” (U.S.C. § 7221(4)). That States strapped with budget crises might divert funding from public schools is a dangerously preposterous possibility under NCLB; clearly the America 2000 reinvention of the education system is alive and well. USDE (2008a) noted that President George W. Bush strongly supports charter schools and since NCLB implementation has invested over $1.8 billion in start-up funds for charter schools nationwide through the Charter Schools Program; additionally, the number of charter schools has doubled since George W. Bush took office (The White House, 2008). 36 Interestingly, as of March 2007, California had 637 charter schools operating serving 219, 460 students with an average enrollment of 345 students; in addition, between 1992 and 2006, 83 California charter school closures were reported (NCES, 2007b). In addition, as of 2005, while charter school teachers in the State of California are required to be certified and meet the same statewide standards and laws as other public schools, such is not the case among all States in the Nation many of which have widely varied teacher certification and student accountability characteristics (NCES, 2005). Supplemental Services During NCLB implementation, schools that are not meeting federal standards for performance must not only offer students the school choice options outlined in the previous section, they must also provide students with supplemental educational services (SES) outside of the regular school day which include tutoring and other services (see Appendix A for full definition). The goal of SES “…is to ensure that these students increase their academic achievement, particularly in reading/language arts and mathematics” (USDE, Non-Reg. Guidance, June 13, 2005, p. 4). Currently, the majority of students receiving these services are students of color. In testimony before a subcommittee of the 110th Congress, Cornelia Ashby noted that nationwide participation in SES increased substantially from 12 percent in 2003-2004 to 19 percent in 2004-2005; most students receiving services were lower-achieving students and “…in about 40 percent of the districts, over half of SES recipients were African-American, and in about 30 percent of districts, over half of the SES recipients were Hispanic” (NCLB: Education Actions may Help Improve Implementation and Evaluation of Supplemental Educational Services, 2007, p. 9). Sunderman (2007b) found that demand for SES has declined. 37 The effectiveness of SES has yet to be determined, however, preliminary findings suggest that students generally improve in Reading and Math (Smole, 2004; Zimmer et al., 2007). Standards-Based Assessments NCLB marked the first time that States were required to establish “challenging academic standards” for all public school elementary and secondary school students (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(1)(C); see Appendix A for full definition). In addition, states were required to implement accountability systems that were based on standards-based assessments (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)). States seem to be making rapid progress towards meeting these requirements of NCLB. As of 2007-2008, 50 states had adopted Standards in the core subjects; however, only 8 States had clear, specific, content-grounded English/Language Arts Standards, 24 States had clear, specific, content-grounded Math Standards, 22 states had clear, specific, content-grounded Science Standards, and only 2 States had clear, specific, content-grounded Social Studies/History Standards (NCES, 2008g). Development of Standards in the aforementioned subjects has not been emphasized since America 2000 and Goals 2000 and remains slow going; from the beginning the emphasis has been on English/Language Arts and Mathematics with Science as a sidebar in the name of innovative competition. The fact that so many states have unclear, ungrounded Standards is a cause for concern. It is noted that “the cornerstone of any substantive education reform lies in the creation and application of rigorous academic standards” (USDE, Non-Reg. Guidance, March 10, 2003). To develop Standards that are not clear, specific, and content-grounded seems to defeat the purpose of developing them at all. Under NCLB, assessments are to be tied to the Standards (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(C)). 38 As of 2007-2008, all the States had assessments in English/Language Arts and Math, 46 States had assessments in Science, and 12 States had assessments in Social Studies/History; California administered English/Language Arts, Math, and Science assessments at the elementary, middle, and high schools levels but only held Social Studies/History assessments at the middle and high school levels (NCES, 2008f). In the State of California, K-12 students take multiple State-administered, Standards-based tests in order to demonstrate their learning progress; Table 2 provides a summary of assessments administered by the State of California. Table 2 Summary of Assessments Administered by the State of California 2008-2009a Grade Content Tested Levels . California Achievement Tests, Sixth Edition Survey (CAT/6) . Language Arts Mathematics Reading/Language Arts Spelling 3 and 7 3 and 7 3 and 7 3 and 7 Participants Typeb All students unless their individualized education program indicates assessment with CAPA or CMA. NR NR NR NR . California Alternate Performance Assessment (CAPA) .. Students with significant cognitive disabilities who are unable to take the CSTs even with accommodations and whose individualized education program indicates assessment with the CAPA. English-Language Arts Mathematics Science 2-11 2-11 2-11 SB SB SB . California English Language Development Test (CELDT) .. All newly enrolled students whose primary language is not English must take the test within 30 calendar days after they are enrolled in a California Public School for the first time. The CELDT must also be given once each year to English Learners until they are reclassified. Listening Reading Speaking Writing K-12 2-12 K-12 2-12 SB SB SB SB 39 Table 2 (Continued) Summary of Assessments Administered by the State of California 2008-2009a Grade Levels Typeb Participants Content Tested . California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) . English-Language Arts Mathematics All grade 10 students. Students in grades 11 and 12 and adult students who have not previously passed. See Col. 1 SB SB . California High School Proficiency Exam (CHSPE) . Voluntary. Ages 16 and up or completed grade 10. Reading Language Mathematics See Col. 1 CR CR CR . California Modified Assessment (CMA) . Students whose individualized education program indicates assessment with CMA English-Language Arts Mathematics Science Writing 3-8 3-8 3-8 3-8 SB SB SB SB California Standards Test (CST) All students unless their individualized education program indicates assessment with CMA or CAPA. English-Language Arts History-Social Science Mathematics Science Writing 2-11 2-11 2-11 2-11 2-11 SB SB SB SB SB Early Assessment Program (EAP)c Voluntary. Algebra II English-Language Arts Summative High School Math 11 11 11 SB SB SB General Education Development (GED) Voluntary. Age 18. Age 17 if eligible. Reading Mathematics Science Social Science Writing See Col. 1 SB SB SB SB SB 40 Table 2 (Continued) Summary of Assessments Administered by the State of California 2008-2009a Grade Levels Typeb Participants Content Tested National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) A sample of grade eligible students in selected schools. Civics Geography Mathematics Reading Science U.S. History 4, 8, 12 4, 8, 12 4, 8, 12 4, 8, 12 4, 8, 12 4, 8, 12 CR CR CR CR CR CR Physical Fitness Test (PFT) All Students. Abdominal Strength and Endurance Aerobic Capacity Body Composition Flexibility Trunk Extensor Strength and Flexibility Upper Body Strength and Endurance See Col. 1 CR CR CR CR CR CR Standards-Based Tests in Spanish (STS) Mathematics 2-11 SB Spanish-speaking English learners 2-11 SB who either receive instruction in their Reading/Language Arts primary language or have been enrolled in a school in the United States less than 12 months. a All data from CDE (2008d); participant information is verbatim. b Standards-Based (SB) means the test is based on California Content Standards. Criterion-referenced (CR) means the test assesses specific information the student has been taught. Norm-referenced (NR) means the test is a standardized, national norm-referenced test that compares student scores to scores from a sample of students selected to be representative of the Nation as a whole. c This test offers augmentations to the CSTs in the listed content areas. Wide Variations in State Standards and Assessments While all states set Standards in the core subjects voluntarily under Goals 2000 and as required by NCLB, there is wide variation in the quality of those standards. This means that ultimately there will be wide variation in the quality of emergent student knowledge. 41 With an increasing emphasis on uniformity and universality, this contradiction is one to which NCLB proponents have yet to adequately respond. Presently, it seems what is most valued is the illusion of improvement for the sake of improvement without any care or attention to what the student has actually learned and how that will help them be a better citizen or global competitor. Because content standards are central to NCLB, the quality of Standards deserves closer attention. The American Federation of Teachers (2006) noted that only 11 States including California meet the criteria for having both strong content standards and documentation that their tests align to them in all NCLB-required grades and subjects and only 20 States had strong reading Standards; California was found to include documented strong Standards in every grade and subject. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) While the quality of state generated Standards and Standards-based assessments continues to widely vary, since 1969 the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) assessment has remained the largest congressionally mandated nationally representative test of what American students know and can do; in addition, main NAEP assessments are conducted in “…a range of subjects with fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth graders across the country. Assessments are given most frequently in mathematics, reading, science, and writing. Other subjects, such as the arts, civics, economics, geography, and U.S. history, are assessed periodically” (NCES, 2008a, p. 3). Because the current study is concerned with middle school student performance since NCLB implementation, trends for the eighth grade main NAEP scores in Math, Reading, and Writing are examined in this section; currently Science and other subject scores are deemphasized when levying NCLB sanctions against schools, so they are not analyzed. 42 NCLB mandated that states receiving Title I funding must participate in state NAEP in reading and mathematics at grades 4 and 8 every two years, however, state participation in other subjects such as Science and Writing remains voluntary (20 U.S.C. § 6311(c)(2)). However, because Writing is intimately linked with overall literacy, Writing scores are analyzed here. While Reading and Math are assessed every two years for the main NAEP, Writing is assessed every four to five years (NCES, 2008a). The NAEP also includes an extensive teacher and student survey enabling the examination of a variety of contextual features that may impact learning that is not currently reliably available in state generated assessments. In addition, since 2002, the Trial Urban District assessment efforts in Math, Reading, and Writing have provided NAEP results for eleven urban districts including Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). The National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) is the body charged with identifying subjects to be tested on the NAEP, developing the subject area frameworks, approving all test questions, improving the reporting of results, and disseminating results to the public; created by Congress in 1988, NAGB is comprised of 26 members appointed by the U.S. Secretary of Education including “…governors, state legislators, local and state school officials, educators and researchers, business representatives, and members of the general public” (NAGB, 2009, ¶3). One area of improvement NAGB has been working on for some time is the fair inclusion, accommodation, and representation of students with disabilities in NAEP assessment and reporting (see Kitmitto & Bandeira de Mello, 2008 for a discussion of the challenges related to determining state inclusion rates for students with disabilities). 43 NAEP Grade 8 Math Trends Every two years, the eighth grade Math NAEP assesses student performance in five areas of mathematical content: (a) number properties and operations, (b) measurement, (c) geometry, (d) data analysis and probability, and (e) algebra (NAGB, 2006a). Table 3 summarizes the percentage of national public school, California, and LAUSD students scoring proficient and above on the NAEP in Grade 8 Math from 20032007 and disaggregates performance by gender, economic status, race/ethnicity, English language fluency, and parental education level. All subgroups of students have shown modest growth in Math proficiency from 2003-2007; however, the performance of Black students in LAUSD and English Language Learner (ELL) students nationally and in the state of California was stagnant between 2003 and 2007. In 2007, only 31 percent of the Nation’s public middle school students were proficient and above at Math. It is interesting to note that in all reporting groups LAUSD middle schools continue to make mediocre progress towards proficiency in Math but still lag behind national public schools, the state of California, and other large urban districts by 10-20 percent. Males continue to demonstrate Math proficiency approximately 5 percent more often than females. In national, state, and local jurisdictions economically disadvantaged students continue to demonstrate proficiency in Math 10-20 percent less often than their more affluent peers. In all jurisdictions, White and Asian/Pacific Islander students demonstrated Math proficiency approximately 30-40 percent more often than Black, Hispanic, and Mexican peers; students who were not ELL reached Math proficiency approximately 20-25 percent more often than ELL students. 44 Finally, both nationally and in the state of California, students whose parents graduated from college or had some college reached Math proficiency approximately 20-30 percent more often than their peers whose parents did not graduate high school. Table 3 Math NAEP Grade 8 Percentages of Students Scoring Proficient and Above 2003-2007 Subgroups All Students Jurisdictions National Public California Large Urban Districts Los Angeles 2003 27 21 17 7 2005 29 22 19 11 2007 31 24 22 14 Gender Male National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles 29 23 9 26 21 7 30 23 13 27 20 9 33 26 15 29 22 12 Female Economic Status a Economically Disadvantaged National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles 11 9 4 37 32 6 13 10 7 38 33 25 16 11 10 42 36 24 Not Economically Disadvantaged Race/Ethnicity American Indian National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles 16 ‡ ‡ 42 39 24 7 6 2 15 ‡ ‡ 47 45 43 9 7 7 17 17 ‡ 49 45 45 11 10 7 Asian/Pacific Islander Black 45 Table 3 (Continued) Math NAEP Grade 8 Percentages of Students Scoring Proficient and Above 2003-2007 Reporting Groups Jurisdictions Race/Ethnicity Hispanic National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles 11 9 3 11 9 4 36 34 29 13 9 6 13 10 5 37 34 31 15 10 9 16 11 10 41 39 40 2003 2005 2007 Hispanic: Mexican/Mexican American/Chicano White English Language Fluency English Language Learner National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles 5 3 2 28 26 9 6 5 # 30 26 15 6 5 1 33 29 19 Not English Language Learner Parental Education Level Did not Finish High School National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles 9 6 5 17 9 4 28 25 11 11 8 3 17 12 5 28 23 15 12 10 8 19 15 9 32 27 16 Graduated High School Some Education After High School National Public 38 41 43 California 35 37 39 Los Angeles 15 23 28 Note. All data is from NAEP Data Explorer available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde a Economically disadvantaged indicates students eligible for national school lunch program and not economically disadvantaged indicates students not eligible for national school lunch program. # Rounds to zero. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Graduated College 46 NAEP Grade 8 Reading Trends Every two years, the eighth grade Reading NAEP assesses student performance in three contexts: (a) reading for literary experience, (b) reading for information, and (c) reading to perform a task (NAGB, 2006b). In addition, NAGB noted that the eighth grade Reading NAEP includes four aspects of reading including 55 percent of questions devoted to forming a general understanding and developing interpretation, 15 percent of questions involving making reader to text connections, and 30 percent of the questions involving examining content and structure. Table 4 summarizes the percentage of national public school, California, and LAUSD students scoring proficient and above on the NAEP in Grade 8 Reading from 2003-2007 and disaggregates performance by gender, economic status, race/ethnicity, English language fluency, and parental education level. Overall growth in Reading proficiency from 2003-2007 has been lethargic with little to no change in 29 percent proficiency nationally, 22 percent in California, 19 percent in large urban districts, and 13 percent proficiency in LAUSD. In all jurisdictions, females continue to demonstrate Reading proficiency approximately 8-10 percent more often than males. The national, state, and local Reading levels of economically disadvantaged students has flatlined with less than 20 percent demonstrating proficiency in all jurisdictions while at the national and state level more affluent students reached Reading proficiency 20 percent more often than their economically disadvantaged peers. The proficiency rates of Black and Hispanic and/or Mexican students are dismal. Less than 15 percent of Mexican and Black students in all jurisdictions are proficient at Reading; there has been a less than 5 percent change from 2003-2007 and the Reading scores of Black students in California and LAUSD has declined during that time. 47 Nationally and statewide, Asian/Pacific Islander and White students demonstrated Reading proficiency approximately 30 percent more often than Black students and 25 percent more often than Hispanic and/or Mexican students; in LAUSD White students scored proficient 30-35 percent more often than Black and Mexican students. ELL students demonstrated reading proficiency approximately 25-30 percent less often than peers who were not ELL. Finally, both nationally and in the state of California, students whose parents graduated from college reached Reading proficiency approximately 25-30 percent more often than their peers whose parents did not graduate high school. Table 4 Reading NAEP Grade 8 Percentages of Students Scoring Proficient and Above 2003-2007 Subgroups All Students Jurisdictions National Public California Large Urban Districts Los Angeles 2003 30 22 19 11 2005 29 21 20 13 2007 29 22 19 13 Gender Male National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles 25 19 9 36 25 12 24 17 10 33 24 15 24 17 9 34 25 16 Female Economic Status a Economically Disadvantaged National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles 15 12 7 39 33 18 15 10 9 38 30 24 16 10 9 40 32 20 Not Economically Disadvantaged Race/Ethnicity American Indian National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles 18 ‡ ‡ 38 37 27 18 ‡ ‡ 29 33 30 19 21 ‡ 40 35 32 Asian/Pacific Islander 48 Table 4 (Continued) Reading NAEP Grade 8 Percentages of Students Scoring Proficient and Above 2003-2007 Subgroups Jurisdictions Race/Ethnicity Black National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles 12 11 7 14 10 6 15 13 7 39 34 36 11 11 8 14 10 9 14 11 9 37 32 31 11 9 6 15 10 8 14 11 8 38 34 41 2003 2005 2007 Hispanic Hispanic: Mexican/Mexican American/Chicano White English Language Fluency English Language Learner National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles 5 4 1 32 27 15 4 3 1 31 25 18 4 3 1 30 26 17 Not English Language Learner Parental Education Level Did not Finish High School National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles 13 10 6 20 15 7 32 24 14 11 9 10 18 12 10 31 24 19 12 10 7 19 14 11 31 23 17 Graduated High School Some Education After High School National Public 40 39 40 California 35 32 34 Los Angeles 23 23 23 Note. All data is from NAEP Data Explorer available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde a Economically disadvantaged indicates students eligible for national school lunch program and not economically disadvantaged indicates students not eligible for national school lunch program. ‡ Reporting standards not met. Graduated College 49 NAEP Grade 8 Writing Trends Every four to five years, the eighth grade Writing NAEP assesses student performance in meeting five Writing objectives via “a variety of written responses to tasks within the confines of a large-scale writing assessment”: (a) students should write for a variety of purposes – narrative (35 percent of prompts), informative (35 percent of prompts), and persuasive (30 percent of prompts), (b) students should write on a variety of tasks and for many different audiences, (c) students should write from a variety of stimulus materials and within various time constraints, (d) students should generate, draft, revise, and edit ideas and forms of expression in their writing, and (e) students should display effective choices in the organization of their writing. They should include detail to illustrate and elaborate their ideas, and use appropriate conventions of written English (NAGB, 2006c, p. 33).Table 5 summarizes the percentage of national public school, California, and LAUSD students scoring proficient and above on the NAEP in Grade 8 Writing from 2002-2007 and disaggregates performance by gender, economic status, race/ethnicity, English language fluency, and parental education level. Overall, students in every jurisdiction have grown less than 5 percent in Writing proficiency from 20022007. In 2007, only 30 percent of the Nation’s public middle school students were proficient and above at Writing. It is interesting to note that overall LAUSD middle schools continue to make substandard progress towards proficiency in Writing and still lag behind national public schools, the state of California, and other large urban districts by approximately 10-15 percent. Females continue to demonstrate Writing proficiency approximately 20 percent more often than males nationally, 16 percent statewide, and 8 percent more often in LAUSD. 50 In national and state jurisdictions economically disadvantaged students and ELL students continue to demonstrate Writing proficiency approximately 20-25 percent less often than their more affluent and non-ELL peers. In all jurisdictions, White and Asian/Pacific Islander students demonstrated Writing proficiency approximately 30 percent more often than Black, Hispanic, and Mexican students. Finally, both nationally and in the state of California, students whose parents graduated from college reached Writing proficiency approximately 20-30 percent more often than those whose parents did not graduate high school; in LAUSD, students with college graduate parents were proficient approximately 15 percent more often than peers with high school and non-high school graduate parents. Table 5 Writing NAEP Grade 8 Percentages of Students Scoring Proficient and Above Writing Trends 2002-2007 Subgroups All Students Jurisdictions National Public California Large Urban Districts Los Angeles 2002 30 23 19 10 2007 30 24 22 13 Gender Male National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles 20 17 6 39 30 15 21 17 8 42 33 19 Female Economic Status a Economically Disadvantaged National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles 15 13 ‡ 39 34 ‡ 16 13 9 41 36 26 Not Economically Disadvantaged Race/Ethnicity American Indian National Public California Los Angeles 17 ‡ ‡ 22 17 ‡ 51 Table 5 Writing NAEP Grade 8 Percentages of Students Scoring Proficient and Above Writing Trends 2002-2007 (Continued) Subgroups Jurisdictions Race/Ethnicity Asian/Pacific Islander National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles 38 37 32 12 10 5 16 12 7 15 15 7 37 34 24 45 44 35 15 13 8 16 13 9 15 13 9 38 37 37 2002 2007 Black Hispanic Hispanic: Mexican/Mexican American/Chicano White English Language Fluency English Language Learner National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles 6 6 1 31 27 14 5 5 2 32 30 17 Not English Language Learner Parental Education Level Did not Finish High School National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles National Public California Los Angeles 14 13 8 20 14 8 30 26 13 13 11 9 20 19 11 32 27 19 Graduated High School Some Education After High School National Public 42 42 California 37 37 Los Angeles 19 24 Note. All data is from NAEP Data Explorer available at http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde a Economically disadvantaged indicates students eligible for national school lunch program and not economically disadvantaged indicates students not eligible for national school lunch program. ‡ Reporting Standards not met. Graduated College 52 A cursory examination of Grade 8 Math, Reading, and Writing NAEP score trends may lead one to erroneously assume that educational progress is being made. However, a growth of a few percentage points is not much to celebrate when less than 33 percent of all students nationally scored proficient in Math, Reading, or Writing in 2007; in addition, Asian/Pacific Islander and White students consistently reach proficiency in all three domains 30-35 percent more often than their Black, Hispanic and/or Mexican peers. In all three subjects, ELL students reach proficiency 20-30 percent less often than their non-ELL peers. In an examination of Black/White segregation patterns, Domina (2006) found that “the concentration of poverty in children’s census tracts and the concentration of college graduates in their counties – independently and additively predict children’s achievement test scores” (p. 181). Domina’s findings are affirmed by this NAEP analysis; students who are economically disadvantaged reached proficiency in Math and Reading 10-20 percent less often and 20-30 percent less often in Writing than their more affluent peers; in all three subjects students with parents who were college graduates reached proficiency approximately 20-30 percent more often than students whose parents did not graduate from high school. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) In addition to mandating that states receiving Title I funds engage in compulsory participation in NAEP, NCLB accountability mechanisms require that States submit detailed plans to ensure that each Local Educational Agency (LEA) is making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) towards the 2013-2014 national goal of 100% student proficiency (see Appendix A for definitions of all terms). Every component of NCLB is set up to help achieve this goal. 53 NCLB required States to create accountability systems that must be approved by the Secretary of Education; NCLB stipulated that State accountability systems must (a) be based on academic Standards and assessments, (b) be the same accountability system for all public elementary and secondary schools that receive Title I funds, and (c) include sanctions and rewards that the States will use to hold LEAs accountable for student achievement (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(A)(i)-(iii)). The NCLB definition of AYP is founded upon the idea that the same high Standards for achievement are applied to all students (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(C)). In addition, NCLB required disaggregating data in order to examine student performance. States are required to include separate measurable objectives for substantial improvement of all students as well as economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(C)(v)) and furthermore, using the 2001-2002 school year as a baseline, States must establish annual measurable goals that progressively increase towards 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014 (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(F)). AYP Score Trends The 2008-2009 school year marked the eighth year of NCLB implementation. Relying solely on NAEP results, USDE (2009a) declared success, citing that test scores are higher and the achievement gap is narrowing (see Lee, 2006 for refutation). However, there are some noteworthy trends in terms of AYP. First, Riddle (2006) noted that urban schools are targeted for AYP improvement at higher rates than suburban or rural schools. Additionally, schools serving low-income students are more often identified as failing schools. 54 For example, Center on Education Policy (2005b) found that in the 2004-2005 school year, “…an estimated 5, 765 Title I schools , or about 13% of all Title I schools were identified for improvement… because they had not made adequate yearly progress (AYP) in raising test scores and meeting other benchmarks” (p. 1). Next, middle schools are increasingly targeted for improvement. Between school years 2002-2003 and 2004-2005, the number of middle schools identified for improvement more than doubled; in addition, middle schools are disproportionately represented among all Title I schools identified for improvement (in 2004-2005)-- “middle schools constituted about 14% of all Title I schools but 37% of Title I schools identified for improvement” (CEP, 2005a, p. 1). Finally, among all schools in the Nation the number not making AYP is rising. For example, The NEA (2008a) found that the percentage of all public schools not making AYP rose three percentage points from 25.8% in 2005-2006 to 28.1% in 20072008. Interestingly, Bryant et al. (2008) predicted that nearly all elementary schools in California will fail to meet AYP requirements for proficiency by 2014. Figures 1-2 provide a summary of California’s expected growth patterns for elementary and middle schools/Districts for English and Math as NCLB required (Figure 1 & Figure 2 are from CDE, 2008h). Figure 1. California’s Intermediate English Goals for Elementary and Middle Schools/Districts 55 Figure 2. California’s Intermediate Math Goals for Elementary and Middle Schools/Districts California’s Academic Performance Index (API) As noted in the previous sections, for better or worse, the State of California has always been a leader in Education. California’s Academic Performance Index (API) is yet another example of an instance where California was a forerunner in National educational trends. In 1999, California passed the Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) which now includes the Standardized Testing and Reporting System, California Standards Tests, California Alternate Performance Assessments (CAPA), CAHSEE, and an API for measuring achievement progress (these elements are used in calculating AYP – an additional indicator, the California Achievement Test is included in API calculations along with the other listed measures). The PSAA included API annual percentage growth targets, a Governor’s Performance Award Program, and an Immediate Intervention/Underperforming Schools Program that included state and local sanctions for schools that did not meet API performance goals (CDE, 2001). 56 API is a single number ranging from a low of 200 to a high of 1000 that reflects a school or LEAs performance level based on statewide testing; API is calculated by converting the performance of a student in multiple content areas into points on the API scale; schools and numerically significant subgroups have unique annual API growth targets. The CDE (2008a) noted that the API has 4 key features: (a) API from one year is compared to API from the prior year to measure improvement, (b) API requires subgroup accountability to address achievement gaps between traditionally lower and higher scoring student subgroups, (c) API is a cross-sectional look at student achievement, and (d) it is used to rank schools and compare schools statewide (p. 4). There are several conflicts that exist between the API system California has employed since 1999 and the new federal AYP requirements. The CDE (2002) outlined several differences in API and AYP including: (a) the fact that API is a single number that summarizes performance over different content areas and therefore functions in a compensatory fashion; this is prohibited by NCLB which requires treating reading and math separately, (b) California API requires comparable improvement of all numerically significant student subgroups while AYP states that any student scoring above the target is not required to improve, and (c) The California model for deriving annual growth targets requires annual recalculation while AYP envisions a fairly static growth target for each year. In the most recent revisions that were approved by the Secretary of Education, the State of California demonstrated how API growth targets mirror AYP expectations that by a certain date all students will reach proficiency. Figure 3 summarizes expected California API growth targets (CDE, 2008h). 57 Figure 3. California API Growth Targets Even with the aforementioned conflicts between AYP and API, it becomes clear that in principle, API was a similar system of accountability that envisioned that by 2013-2014 100 percent of students would reach level of performance that by most estimates and understandings of human phenomena just simply is unattainable. NCLB “Growth Models” and “Differentiated Accountability” Since implementation, the USDE has developed two different pilot programs in order to assist States in meeting the requirements of NCLB, the Growth Models Pilot Program and the Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program; State interest in these pilot programs has been low. In 2005, Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announced that no more than ten states would be permitted to enter into a Growth Model Pilot Program; in her announcement she stated that “a growth model is not a way around accountability standards. It’s a way for states that are already raising achievement and following the bright-line principles of the law to strengthen accountability” (USDE, 2005b, ¶ 2). The cap on the number of states was later removed, and in 2009, Spellings announced that four new states were approved for participation in the Growth Models Pilot Program, bringing the total number of States participating to less than twenty. 58 Interestingly, New York and California, two States in the union with large urban school Districts, declined to apply for participation in the program. Spellings stated that the bright-line principles for high-quality growth models included ensuring that all students are proficient by 2014 and setting annual State goals to ensure that the achievement gap is closing for all groups of students; in addition, “growth models track individual student achievement from one year to the next, giving schools credit for student improvement over time” (USDE, 2009b). Similar to the responses to the Growth Models Pilot Program, as of 2009, less than 20 States applied to participate in the Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program; California and New York did not apply for the program. According to USDE, the Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program allows states to vary the intensity and types of interventions to match the academic causes leading to identification for improvement. In addition, “differentiated accountability means creating a more nuanced system of distinguishing between schools in need of dramatic intervention, and those that are closer to meeting goals”; it is stated that this pilot program is meant to help states “do what is necessary to enable all students to read and do math at grade level or better by 2014 in a more effective and efficient manner” (USDE, 2008b, ¶ 4). At the time of this study, it is too early in its implementation to assess the effectiveness of the Differentiated Accountability Pilot Program. School Support/Consequences/Restructuring NCLB does not offer much to urban schools in terms of school support to meet its goals. Instead, this responsibility is left to the States. 59 NCLB required that each State a system of sustained support and improvement for LEAs and schools receiving Title I funds “in order to increase the opportunity for all students served by those agencies and schools to meet the State’s academic content standards and student academic achievement standards” (20 U.S.C. § 6317(a)(1)). In addition, NCLB required that States outline rewards for schools/LEAs that exceed AYP for two consecutive years (20 U.S.C. § 6316(c)(2)) and identify for improvement all LEAs that fail to meet AYP for two consecutive years (20 U.S.C. § 6316(c)(3)) It is interesting to note State trends in providing awards and sanctions. NCES (2008c) reported that in the 2007-2008 school year, 35 states provided rewards to high-performing or improving schools, 39 States provided assistance to low-performing schools, and 32 States issued sanctions for low-performing schools. In 2005-2006, NCES (2006c) found that 10 States used school closure as a sanction, 25 States used reconstitution, 13 States used reconstitution as a charter, 16 States used permitting student transfers, 14 States used turning schools over to private management as a sanction, and only 5 States used withholding funds as a sanction; California engages in all of the listed sanctions except for withholding funds. While NCLB required States to ensure that all schools meet AYP requirements and include sanctions and rewards it will use to hold LEAs and schools accountable (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(A)), it only delineated consequences for Title I schools (USDE, Non-Reg. Guidance, July 21, 2006) and left the decision for prescribing sanctions to all other schools to the discretion of the States. The consequences NCLB outlined for Title I schools are highly detailed and prescriptive in nature and begin after a school is initially identified as needing improvement. 60 Specifically, NCLB required LEAs to “…identify for school improvement any elementary school or secondary school served under this part that fails, for 2 consecutive years, to make adequate yearly progress as defined in the State’s plan” (20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(1)(A)). A school moves to the next step of the consequences if it continues to fail to meet AYP. NCLB outlined in detail what LEAs must do at each step of the process with the endgame being restructuring. Table 6 summarizes the various steps outlined in NCLB school program improvement (PI) sanctions for Title I schools. Table 6 NCLB PI Sanctions for Title I Schools School Improvement Steps Year One: School Improvement Year One In general, schools identified for improvement must receive technical assistance that enables them to specifically address the academic achievement problem that caused the school to be identified for improvement. The LEA is required to provide technical assistance as the school develops and implements the plan, including specific assistance in analyzing assessment data, improving professional development, and improving resource allocation. In addition, the following must take place: (1) All students are offered public school choice. And (2) each school identified for improvement must develop or revise a two-year school improvement plan, in consultation with parents, school staff, the local educational agency, and other experts, for approval by the LEA. The plan must incorporate research-based strategies, a 10 percent set-aside of Title I funds for professional development, extended learning time as appropriate (including school day or year), strategies to promote effective parental involvement and mentoring for new teachers. Year Two: School Improvement Make available supplemental educational services to students from low-income families. In addition, the LEA continues to offer technical assistance to implement the new plan, and offer public school choice. Year Three: Corrective Action Corrective Action requires an LEA to take actions likely to bring about meaningful change at the school. To accomplish this goal, LEAs are required to take at least one of the following corrective actions, depending on the needs of the individual school: (1)Replace school staff responsible for the continued failure to make AYP; (2) implement a new curriculum based on scientifically based research (including professional development); (3) significantly decrease management authority at the school level; (4) extend the school day or school year; (5) appoint an outside expert to advise the school on its progress toward making AYP in accordance with its school plan; OR (6) reorganize the school internally. In addition, the LEA continues to offer technical assistance, public school choice and supplemental educational services. 61 Table 6 (Continued) NCLB PI Sanctions for Title I Schools School Improvement Steps Year Four: Restructuring During the first year of restructuring, the LEA is required to prepare a plan and make necessary arrangements to carry out one of the following options: (1) Reopen school as charter school, (2) replace principal and staff, (3) contract for private management company of demonstrated effectiveness, (4) state takeover, (5) any other major restructuring of school governance. In addition, the LEA continues to offer public school choice and supplemental educational services. Year Five: Implementation of Restructuring Implement alternative governance plan no later than first day of school year following year four described above. Note. All data is verbatim (USDE, 2002a) Restructuring Efforts in California Ziebarth (2004) outlined that State policies for restructuring low-performing schools vary widely and include the options of closing and reopening as charter schools, reconstituting staff, contracting with an entity to operate the school, and state takeover; only 7 states had policies that were enacted as a result of NCLB. For example, the PSAA in the State of California permitted the State superintendent to reassign principals or other employees at schools being monitored by the state for low-performance and to also apply to the State Board of Education to establish a charter school at the existing school site. While some argued that restructuring schools is the best model for reform (Snell, 2006), others argue that experience has taught us that reconstitution (Spitser, 2007) and restructuring (Mintrop & Trujillo, 2005) not only promote inequity but do not work. In addition, CEP (2008b) has been studying restructuring in the State of California since 2004-2005 and noted that more schools have entered restructuring each year, urban schools remain overrepresented among restructuring schools, and few schools have exited restructuring. 62 Table 7 provides a summary of California PI status as of 2008-2009 (from CDE, 2008c). Table 7 California Title I PI Status: Statewide Summary of Schools 2008-2009 Year Advance in PI Remain in PI Total in PI Exit PI Year 1 267 54 321 55 Year 2 287 82 369 9 Year 3 358 35 393 21 Year 4 213 52 265 11 Year 5 345 567 912 7 Total 1470 790 2260 103 Note. Year represents level of PI implementation. Advance in PI represents number of schools or LEAs that moved into PI or the number that moved from the prior year of PI implementation. Remain in PI represents the number of schools or LEAs that did not change PI from 2007-08 to 2008-09. Total in PI represents the total number in each year of implementation, as well as the number of schools or LEAs that advanced or remained the same. Exit PI represents the number of schools or LEAs that are no longer in PI. Curricular Ramifications of NCLB Implementation There are several curricular consequences resulting from NCLB implementation. CEP (2007b) found that Districts reported more than 20% of middle schools and 62% of elementary schools substantially increased time for English and Math instruction and decreased time for other subjects in 2001-2002; in addition, the increases and decreases were more prevalent in Districts with schools identified for improvement. Clearly, NCLB has had an effect on what is taught in schools, how it is taught, and when. Chapman (2007) noted that while the law “…prohibits the establishment of a national curriculum, it does impose a discipline-based curriculum model on schools, with a clear disdain for Social Studies and other interdisciplinary approaches to teaching and learning” (p. 27). Similarly, Schaffer and Hoekstra (2007) argued that NCLB is a “serious federal intrusion into state authority that creates a prescriptive ‘one-size-fits-all’ framework with less freedom to meet the unique needs of… districts that have large migrant populations, or communities with concentrated poverty” (p. 1). 63 There is not only federal intrusion into state policy, but instances of federal corruption related to NCLB implementation, particularly in reference to the Reading First program which NCLB designated as a scientifically-based program that would help “ensure that every student can read at grade level or above not later than the end of grade 3” (20 U.S.C. § 6361(1); see Allen et al. 2007; Krashen, 2006, 2008 for a discussion of its local, state, and national failure). The grant process related to this component of NCLB created a firestorm of controversy. The Office of the Inspector General (2006) questioned whether USDE violated NCLB provisions and Federal law by influencing LEA choice of reading programs in addition to improperly selecting the grant review panel. McCallion (2006) also outlined the criticisms of the Reading First program and stated that some of the criticisms involve “…perceived ‘overprescriptiveness’ of the program as it has been administered, perceptions of insufficient transparency regarding [USDE] requirements of the states, and allegations of conflicts of interest between consultants to the program and commercial reading and assessment companies” (p. 1). Reading First notwithstanding, Henley, McBride, Milligan, and Nichols (2007) outlined how NCLB implementation has damaged elementary-level education. Similarly, CEP (2008) found that more than half of Districts increased elementary school time for English by 150 minutes or more per week and 19% added 150 more minutes of time per week for Math; these factors are certain to have effects on incoming middle school students. Trends in Student Performance CEP (2005b) found that urban schools were more frequently targeted for improvement under AYP calculations. 64 Similarly, Riddle (2006) found that schools most likely to be identified as in need of improvement “were those large, urban LEAs, schools with high pupil poverty rates, and middle schools” (p. 22); in addition “the odds of failing to meet AYP standards were much greater for urban (50%) LEAs than for rural (11%) or suburban (26%) LEAs” (p. 22). In addition, a study of NCLB implementation in six States that serve large portions of students of color and low-income students (Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, New York, and Virginia) found that schools that are highly segregated and enroll a disproportionate share of State’s students of color and low income students are more often identified as in need of improvement; furthermore, there was a 176% increase in the number of schools identified for improvement in the State of California over 5 years (Owens & Sunderman, 2006). Nevertheless, NCLB requires that all students, including economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, ELL students, and students of color must be proficient by 2013 (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(F)). These factors are crucial in understanding NCLB implementation in California and the performance of economically disadvantaged students, students of color, gifted and talented students, special education students, and English Language Learner (ELL) students in English and Math. Economically Disadvantaged Students The Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk, authorized by Title I, Part D of ESEA was amended by NCLB to include one program for States and one program for local programs (20 U.S.C. § 6421 et seq). 65 The purposes of these programs are to improve educational services for children and youth in local and State institutions for neglected or delinquent children so that they “have the same opportunity to meet the same challenging State academic content and State student achievement standards that all children are expected to meet” and to prevent at-risk youth from dropping out as well as provide those returning from correctional facilities or institutions with a support system to ensure continued education (USDE, Non-Reg. Guidance, March 5, 2006, p. 3). The effectiveness of these programs remains to be determined. However, 2008 proficiency data reveals trends related to the English and Math performance of economically disadvantaged students in California. Table 8 summarizes California Standards Tests (CST) performance trends from 20032008 (all data is from CDE, 2008b). As outlined in Table 2, the CSTs are administered in grades 2-11 to all students unless they are using an individualized education program that requires alternate assessment. Table 8 Percentages of California Economically Disadvantaged Students Scoring at Proficient and Above in English and Math CSTs 2003-2008 Subgroup 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 % English CST Performance All Students Economically Disadvantaged Not economically Disadvantaged 35 20 49 36 21 50 40 25 57 42 27 58 44 29 60 46 32 62 11 12 13 Math CST Performance All Students 35 34 38 Economically Disadvantaged 24 25 29 Not economically Disadvantaged 45 44 49 Note. % Column represents the change in percentage from 2003-2008. 41 31 52 41 31 52 43 33 54 8 9 9 66 This summative analysis reveals that overall there is minimal difference between English and Math CST performance between economically disadvantaged and not economically disadvantaged students. However, all students are far away from the mark set for them by NCLB compliance requirements. According to the bright line principles of NCLB, in the 2007-2008 school year 35% of all Californian students should be proficient in English and 37% of all Californian students should be proficient in Math (see Figure 1 and Figure 2). Thus, while the State met the goals for overall student performance, it did not meet the goal for economically disadvantaged students in English or Math. Additionally, while there are minimally observable gains at the elementary school levels towards narrowing racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps, at the middle school level the gaps are widening for economically disadvantaged students. The Education Trust West (2008) found that in 2007-2008 California Latino, African-American, and low-income eighth grade middle school students reach CST proficiency at less than half the rate of their White, Asian, and more affluent peers. Students of Color One of the stated purposes of NCLB is “closing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing children, especially the achievement gaps between minority and non-minority students, and between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers” (20 U.S.C. § 6301(3)). However, according to Education Trust West, in California, over time the CST gaps between Latino and White students have remained stagnant, gaps between African-American and White students remained stagnant in Math and grew by two points in English, and gaps between low-income students and their more affluent peers grew by five percentage points in English and one point in Math. 67 Table 9 summarizes California Standards Tests (CST) performance trends for Students of Color from 2003-2008 (all data is from CDE, 2008b). Table 9 Percentages of California Students of Color Scoring at Proficient and Above on English and Math CSTs 2003-2008 Subgroup 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 % English CST Performance African American or Black American Indian or Alaskan Native Asian Filipino Hispanic or Latino Pacific Islander White 22 31 55 48 20 31 53 23 31 57 50 21 31 54 27 36 61 55 25 36 58 29 37 64 58 27 39 60 31 39 66 60 29 41 62 33 40 69 62 32 43 64 11 9 14 14 12 12 11 Math CST Performance African American or Black 19 19 23 American Indian or Alaskan Native 29 28 32 Asian 60 60 64 Filipino 44 45 50 Hispanic or Latino 23 23 27 Pacific Islander 31 31 35 White 47 46 51 Note. % Column represents the change in percentage from 2003-2008. 25 34 67 53 30 38 53 25 34 67 53 30 38 53 28 36 69 55 33 40 54 9 7 9 11 10 9 7 While every subgroup of student is making gains, the achievement gap between African American and Latino students compared to white students remains large. In 2008, over 30% more Whites scored proficient or above in English and over 20% more Whites scored proficient or above in Math. Gifted and Talented Students Gifted and Talented students are the most neglected student subgroup in NCLB provisions (see Loveless, Farkas, & Duffett, 2008 for a discussion of declining performance of high-achieving students and teacher pressure to focus on low-performing students to the neglect of high-performing students). NCLB does not offer any advisement about improving the education of our Nation’s brightest students. 68 Gifted and Talented students are only mentioned prominently in two places in the entire Act. First, NCLB leaves it to the discretion of States to include changes in the percentages of students completing gifted and talented, advanced placement, or college preparatory classes as academic indicators in calculating AYP (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(C)(vii)). This means that the performance of Gifted students simply does not count according to NCLB; in calculating AYP there is nothing in the provisions to account for moving students from proficient to advanced levels of performance. Second, Subpart 6-Gifted and Talented Students offers assistance to states to “initiate a coordinated program of scientifically based research, demonstration projects, innovative strategies, and similar activities designed to build and enhance the ability of elementary schools and secondary schools nationwide to meet the special educational needs of gifted and talented students” (20 U.S.C. 7253 et seq.). Subsequently locating information about how Gifted students are performing during NCLB implementation was not possible. California does not include any information about the performance of Gifted students in any of its reports (CDE, 2007, 2008b). However, several authors have discussed the plight of Gifted students during NCLB implementation (Champion, 2008; Gallagher, 2007; Gentry, 2006a; Merry, 2008; Leblanc, 2008 Robinson, 2008). While NCLB demands that we turn our attention towards low-performing students in an effort to work furiously to close the achievement gap between students of color and White students, the individual twice taxed with injustice, the Gifted student of color, is being dangerously swept aside as remediation and test preparation becomes the curriculum and instruction order of the day. 69 Special Education Students Legislative provisions to provide a free and appropriate education for students with disabilities was established by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) which had its most significant revisions in 2004 (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.); part of the Act required States to establish performance goals for children with disabilities. NCLB required that state plans are coordinated with IDEA (20 U.S.C. § 6311(a)(1)) and that AYP calculations include separate measurable annual objectives for students with disabilities (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(C)(II)(cc)) with the ultimate goal that they too will reach 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014. For students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, this has presented a host of challenges (see Yell, Katsiyannas, & Shiner 2006 for a comparative analysis of NCLB and IDEA). In 2003, USDE clarified that students with disabilities must be tested in terms of the State academic content Standards. States were reminded that the goal was 100 percent proficiency for all students, including students with disabilities. The final rule allowed testing students with the most significant cognitive disabilities using alternative achievement Standards in order to include their proficiency rates in AYP calculations. However, the final rule stipulated that the percentage of the students using alternative achievement standards must not exceed 1% (68 Fed. Reg. 68,699, December 9, 2003). Additionally, in 2007, USDE published regulations allowing States to develop Modified Academic achievement Standards for students with the most significant cognitive and to use results from those assessments in calculating AYP. 70 In addition, under this rule States were prohibited from establishing different minimum numbers of students from separate subgroups and permitted to administer assessments to all students more than once and include the students best score in calculating AYP (72 Fed. Reg. 17,748, April 9, 2007). The California Alternative Performance Assessment was designed for “Students with significant cognitive disabilities who are unable to take the CSTs even with accommodations and whose individualized education program indicates assessment with the CAPA” (CDE, 2008d). Table 10 summarizes the CAPA performance trends for Californian students with disabilities from 2003-2008 (all data is from CDE, 2008b). Table 10 Percentages of California Students with Disabilities Scoring at Proficient or Above in English and Math CAPAs 2003-2008 Subgroup 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 % English CAPA Performance Students Received Special Education Services Students with no Reported Disability 9 38 14 38 16 43 17 45 18 46 20 49 11 11 Math CAPA Performance Students Received Special Education Services 13 16 18 Students with no Reported Disability 37 36 41 Note. % Column represents the change in percentage from 2003-2008. 20 43 20 43 23 45 10 8 While both groups of students are making progress and demonstrating growth, in 2008 students receiving special education services performed at approximately 20 percent less proficiency levels compared to students with no reported disability in English and Math. This is concerning because it points to persistent inadequacies in instructional support and accommodations being made available to students with disabilities. 71 ELL Students NCLB amendments to Title III required that beginning with the 2002-2003 school year, States administer annual English Language Proficiency assessments to measure the oral language, reading, and writing skills of all students with “limited English proficiency” and establish annual objectives for those students (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(7)) . Initially, NCLB required that all students, including those who had newly arrived and recently reclassified as English proficient to be tested along with other students and that AYP calculations and to include separate measurable annual objectives for “students with limited English proficiency” (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(C)(II)(dd)). In its final rule that ELL students may not be exempted from any part of the annual assessment, USDE noted, “one of the key goals of Title III of the ESEA is to ensure that LEP students attain English language proficiency, attain high levels of academic achievement in English, and meet the same academic achievement standards that all children are expected to meet” (73, Fed. Reg. 61, 828, October 17, 2008). The State of California had a unique advantage over other States in terms of this accountability requirement because the California English Language Development Test (CELDT) implemented statewide in 2001 measures the listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills of ELL students and was the first test of its kind in the Nation to measure the listening, speaking, reading, and writing skills of ELL students. However, Rossell (2005) noted that while the English Language Development Standards are notably high, aligned with the English Content Standards, and detail what ELL students should know redesignation as English proficient is an extremely complicated process in California and accordingly, redesignation rates are low when compared to other States. 72 National and California ELL student proficiency rates remain low. The Quality Counts report from Editorial Projects in Education (2009) found the number of ELL students increased by 57 percent between 1995 and 2005 and that as of 2008-2009 only 33 states, including California had standards for ELL instruction; interestingly, only 7 states including California banned or restricted native language instruction. It was noted that in 2006-2007 only 12.9% of ELL students nationwide and 9% of California ELL students reclassified out of ELL status and less than 20% of ELL students nationwide and 13% of California ELL students attained English language proficiency. Furthermore wide disparities were found between ELL and non-ELL performance on State and NAEP tests. Similarly, Fry (2007) noted that 51% of eighth grade ELL students were behind Whites in Reading and Math NAEP scores. In addition, Abedi and Dietel (2004) analyzed the persistent gaps between ELL students and their peers and Jespen and Alth (2005) and Gándara, Rumberger, Maxwell-Jolly and Callahan (2003) outlined the litany of challenges ELL students face in California. Table 11 summarizes the CST performance trends for Californian ELL students from 2003-2008 (all data is from CDE, 2008b). Table 11 Percentages of California ELL Students Scoring at Proficient or Above in English and Math CSTs 2003-2008 Subgroup 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 % English CST Performance English Only Students Initially-Fluent English Proficient (IFEP) Reclassified-Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) English Learners 44 46 40 10 44 48 42 10 49 53 48 12 51 56 50 14 52 58 51 15 54 62 55 17 10 16 15 7 Math CST Performance 39 39 43 English Only Students 45 45 49 Initially-Fluent English Proficient (IFEP) 37 37 41 Reclassified-Fluent English Proficient (RFEP) 20 20 24 English Learners Note. % Column represents the change in percentage from 2003-2008. 45 52 43 26 45 53 42 26 47 55 45 29 8 10 8 9 73 Clearly there are some inequalities regarding performance of Californian ELL students and their peers; for example, while all groups have demonstrated gains in performance, in 2008, over 40% more English Only students scored proficient or above compared to English Learners in English and over 20% more English Only students scored proficient or above in Math compared to ELL students. These trends are particularly disconcerting as the English Learner population in California grows larger. The Dropout Crisis The dropout crisis has been a concern of educational architects since the time of Goals 2000 which stated that one of the National Education Goals was “by the year 2000, the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent” and furthermore that “the Nation must dramatically reduce its school dropout rate, and 75 percent of the students who do drop out will successfully complete a high school degree or its equivalent” (H.R. 1804 § 102(2)(A)-(B)). NCLB provisions continued with this concern for high school graduation with the inclusion of the Dropout Prevention Act which sought to ‘‘…provide for school dropout prevention and reentry and to raise academic achievement levels by providing grants that— (1) challenge all children to attain their highest academic potential; and (2) ensure that all students have substantial and ongoing opportunities to attain their highest academic potential through schoolwide programs proven effective in school dropout prevention and reentry (20 U.S.C. § 6551 et seq). In addition, NCLB required State accountability systems to “include graduation rates for public secondary school students (defined as the percentage of students who graduate from secondary school with a regular diploma in the standard number of years)” (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(C)(vi)). 74 Determining the depth of the dropout crisis has been complicated by the unstable and widely varying measurements states employ when calculating graduation rates. However, states are under new regulations to adhere to a uniform graduation rate formula that excludes alternative paths to graduation and uses a “four-year adjusted cohort rate” or “extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate” no later than the 2011-2012 school year and must use a “transitional graduation rate” in the interim (73 Fed. Reg. 64,499, October 29, 2008; see Appendix A for definitions and USDE, Non-Reg. Guidance, October 29, 2008 for additional information regarding Uniform Graduation Rate). Under these new regulations, states must set a single, uniform graduation rate goal that “… represents the rate the State expects all high schools in the State to meet… [and must also form] annual graduation rate targets that reflect continuous and substantial improvement from the prior year toward meeting or exceeding the graduation rate” (73 Fed. Reg. 64,509, October 29, 2008). The dropout crisis is of concern to this study which focuses on middle school students because research has shown that successful completion of high school is strongly influenced by a student’s cumulative experience; those who drop out are usually disengaged via low academic performance and/or high truancies and absences in their middle school years (Alexander, Entwisle, & Kabbini, 2001; Balfanz, Herzog, & Mac Iver, 2007; see also Rumberger & Lim, 2008 for an extensive review of the literature synthesizing 25 years of research regarding national, state, and local trends in the dropout crisis). In addition, Rotermund (2008a) found that one in eight dropouts in the state of California come from middle schools; LAUSD accounts for 15% of the dropouts in California (Rotermund, 2008b). 75 In an examination of factors predicting high school graduation in LAUSD for nearly 50,000 students, Silver, Saunders, and Zarate (2008) found that successive course failures at the middle school level had a stronger negative impact on high school graduation rates than course failure at the high school level and that middle school attendance rates were strong predictors for high school graduation rates. In the state of California, the California Dropout Research Project (CDRP) examined the dropout crisis from 2006-2008 and attempted to synthesize research regarding the crisis and inform policymakers of the challenges we will face if it is not properly addressed. CDRP (2008) noted that while it is difficult to precisely determine how many students are dropping out, “estimated graduation rates in California are substantially lower for Blacks (57%), Hispanics (60%), and Native Americans (52%) compared to Asians (84%) and Whites (77%). English Learners, who comprise 15% of all California high school students, represent 30% of all dropouts” (p. 2). These factors are disconcerting as middle schools attempt to address the mandates of NCLB which call for less personalization and greater standardization leading to increased student disengagement from the learning process. As the state continues to develop more accurate measures of high school graduation rates in order to comply with NCLB mandates, it remains to be seen just how deeply the dropout crisis has intensified. Funding NCES (2006b) reported that in fiscal year 2006, nationally 44.4 percent of the source of revenues for public, elementary, and secondary schools was local, 46.5 was State, and 9.1 percent was federal; in the State of California, 29.9 percent was local, 59.3 percent was State, and 10.8 percent was federal. 76 Because California schools have historically been so reliant on State funds for their success, the current State budget crisis is hitting our schools particularly viciously as outlined in the comments of David L. Brewer in the opening pages of this manuscript. Similarly, when examining how funds are actually spent, interesting trends emerge. According to NCES (2006a), in 2006, 60.3 percent of California expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools were for instruction, the second largest expenditure was 6.8 percent for school administration, and the third largest expenditure was for student support services which comprised a mere 4.6 percent of expenditures. Clearly states like California are dependent on federal funding for their survival. California school systems could not opt-out of NCLB requirements even if they wanted to; they are dependent on federal funds for their survival. States with lower percentages of economically disadvantaged people have a significant advantage because they can stand to opt-out of receiving federal funds. This is why states like California feel even more intense pressure to comply with requests from the USDE, being that NCLB grants the Secretary of Education the power to withhold funds until States implement “challenging academic standards,” meet all requirements outlined in NCLB, and withhold grant funds until States begin to make “sufficient progress,” (20 U.S.C. § 6311(g)(1)(A); 20 U.S.C. § 6311(g)(2); 20 U.S.C. § 6362(e)(3)). Thus, in addition to the legal challenges regarding the unfunded mandates of NCLB previously outlined, the state budget crisis continues to swell even further complicating NCLB implementation and day to day instruction in California schools. 77 Manuscript Overview This manuscript is comprised of five chapters. In the introductory chapter I provide the statement of the problem, the research goals and questions, and the purpose and significance of the study. In addition, I outline the historical political origins and trajectory of NCLB implementation; this includes a discussion of the legislative foundations of Standards-based accountability and an overview of state resistance to NCLB implementation. In addition, I provide a detailed discussion of NCLB implementation in California in terms of the various facets of NCLB. Included in the discussion of NCLB implementation in California is a description of current status of administrative, teacher, student, and parent accountability as envisioned in the legislation. Next, choice/transfer options, supplemental services, and standards-based assessments used in the State of California are discussed. Then, National and State AYP trends, California’s API and accommodations USDE has made during implementation along with school support/consequences/restructuring efforts in California is discussed. Finally, curricular ramifications, and a brief discussion of trends in the performance of economically disadvantaged, gifted and talented, special education, and ELL students during NCLB implementation is provided. The introduction concludes with a brief discussion of continuing funding challenges presented to the State of California during NCLB implementation. Chapter II presents a review of the literature related to this study. The emergent themes from 6 landmark pieces is discussed and the literature review process is described. The themes of educational choice and equity, teacher professionalism and autonomy, and the interests of students and communities are identified. 78 In addition, the theoretical assumptions and epistemological orientation of the author are provided in this section. In Chapter III the study methodology is detailed including a discussion of the methodological assumptions guiding the study, a detailed description of the research site, method of data collection, selection of participants, credibility, and trustworthiness and ethical issues. The data analysis process and methodological limitations are also included in this section. Chapter IV presents the findings of this study organized around the themes of educational choice and equity, teacher professionalism and autonomy, and the interests of students and communities identified in the literature review section. This chapter also includes a discussion of the reliability matrix co-constructed during member check follow up interviews. Finally, Chapter V is the conclusion of this manuscript. In this section a summary of the study and a summary of the focus group results is provided. This section also includes a discussion of reauthorization considerations and implications and recommendations for urban schools and districts, parents and students, educators, and local, state, and federal policy makers. In addition the contribution and limitations of this study as well as directions for future research are provided. 79 Chapter II: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Overview of the Chapter The organizational template for this literature review accommodates the qualitative aesthetic and the postpositivist aims of politically-oriented action research. First, in the literature review section, six landmark research studies and scholarly works are thematicized and synthesized. Next, in the theoretical assumptions section, Applean critical theory and Freirean liberatory education theory are established as frameworks that are essential in understanding the implementation of NCLB in urban schools. Finally, in the discussion and conclusions section, an interpretation of the findings thus far is presented. Assuredly, the primary placement of the literature review and the secondary location of the theoretical assumptions in this section reflect the constructivist processes employed. The research processes employed by postpositivist, or constructivist inquiry differ greatly from conventional, or positivist inquiry in that the tacit knowledge of the researcher is embraced in the former. While positivist inquiry is bound by propositional knowledge and aims to verify or prove previously established theory, postpositivist inquiry incorporates what Polanyi (1958/1974) described as tacit knowledge, or that human phenomena whereby we sometimes know more than we can tell. In essence, as Guba and Lincoln (1989) noted, “…the constructivist moves into a situation without prior propositional formulations in mind; indeed, it is a premise that the constructivist will initially have very little idea of what is salient and, therefore, ought to be examined”; hence, it is beneficial to honor the tacit understanding of the researcher (p. 176). 80 The experience and voice of the researcher plays a considerable role in the constructivist research process; instead of shunning these elements, they are embraced and disclosed so that the reader may gain a full perspective into how the researcher developed the process used to arrive at the conclusions presented. The experientially grounded tacit understandings I possess regarding the implementation of NCLB in my urban school provided the lens through which the literature review process was approached. Accordingly, the nature of constructivist inquiry provides a sound justification for the modified organization of this literature review. Guiding Question for the Literature Review The genesis of any scholarly research project is a question that develops in the mind of the researcher. While the accountability measures related to standardized test scores are clearly delineated in the law, there are no provisions to explore the human responses or difficulties urban schools might encounter related to NCLB implementation. Thus, the initial question that guided the literature review process for this research was: how has NCLB implementation affected the daily life of (a) classroom teachers, (b) out-of the classroom teachers, and (c) administrators at urban middle schools (e.g. pedagogically, socio-emotionally, professionally, curricularly, ad infinitum)? In addition, it was anticipated that the experiences of urban educators would provide insight into the effects on communities and students. While the focus of NCLB accountability measures is positivist and objectivist, the focus of this question is humanist and relational. The initial question guiding my literature review process was concerned with accountability in relation to the significance of lived experiences rather than the numeric gains demonstrated via standardized test gains or losses. 81 Description of the Literature Review Process A wide variety of literature related to NCLB was initially reviewed in this process. As each source was reviewed, comparative analysis methods elucidated by Glaser and Strauss (1967/2006) were used to frame and reframe emergent themes. Each potential source was coded using various conceptual categories that were both tacitly and externally generated. Eventually the focus of the literature search became the implementation of NCLB. Thus, the purpose of this literature review is to analyze and thematicize research related to NCLB implementation in urban schools. Due to its emergent nature, the focus on NCLB implementation significantly narrowed the range of scholarly works to analyze; it is interesting to note the dearth of research that positively views the implementation of NCLB in urban schools. Most of the available research casts NCLB implementation in a negative light as legislation that is fraught with logistical, epistemological, theoretical, and pedagogical faults. Glaser and Strauss (1967/2006) suggested that “in discovering theory, one generates conceptual categories or their properties from evidence, then the evidence from which the category emerged is used to illustrate the concept” (p. 23). This iterative process is reflected in the organization of my literature review wherein six key works are individually and holistically critiqued indepth in relation to an overarching theme and evidence from each work is used to illustrate the theme. The research studies and scholarly works are not compared to one another because each offers a unique, significant contribution to understanding how NCLB implementation has affected schools. Glaser and Strauss (1967/2006) noted that the rigors of iterative analysis bolster theme confidence because “…they have emerged from the data and are constantly being selectively reformulated by them” (p. 76). 82 Emergent Themes from the Literature The themes that emerged from the literature were that the implementation of NCLB has affected three areas: (a) educational choice and equity, (b) teacher preparation and autonomy, and (c) the interests of students and communities. In summation, this literature review analyzes and thematicizes six key research studies and scholarly works regarding how the NCLB implementation impacts educational choice and accountability, teacher preparation and autonomy, and the interests of students and communities. Educational Choice and Equity One driving force behind the authorization of NCLB was the assurance of increased educational choice and equity. Consequently, there was bipartisan support for requiring States to demonstrate progress via standardized testing in Language Arts and Math. However, questions abound regarding whether policies resulting from NCLB promote or impinge educational equity. The proponents of NCLB claim that this legislation works to ensure educational equity in American public schools by ensuring all students meet the same standards codified by an increasingly uniform, universal curriculum and measured via norm-referenced tests (Hirsch, 2005; Ravitch, 2000). Ultimately, supporters of NCLB suggest that mandating high-stakes tests pressuring all students to meet a level of absolute proficiency by the 2013-2014 school year is the best way to ensure equity; one provision of the law is that by 2013-2014 100% of all students will score at the proficient level in Math and Language Arts standardized tests (67 Fed. Reg. 35,968, May 22, 2002). However, scholars outlined the detriments of high-stakes testing and questioned whether instruments used in federal calculations are effective, equitable indicators of achievement (Linn, 2008; Haladyna, 2006; Popham, 2004). 83 Additionally, there is growing research suggesting that the theoretical intentions of NCLB do not coincide with the practices produced by its implementation. For example, Kim and Sunderman (2005) and Yeh (2006) offered salient insight into the implications NCLB implementation has for educational equity. Kim and Sunderman (2005) conducted multiple quantitative analyses of standardized test data from seven diverse states to determine if more stringent AYP requirements contained in NCLB disparately affected high poverty and racially diverse schools. AYP represents federal benchmark indicators of student achievement demonstrated by a continual rise in test scores. The implication is that student achievement occurs only when students demonstrate increased performance on normreferenced tests. Kim and Sunderman noted that requiring all schools to meet a single mean proficiency level is an ineffective measure of school effectiveness, particularly when students belong to multiple subgroups that further decrease the likelihood that a school will achieve AYP. In addition, the pressing nature of this requirement is evident as racially diverse and high-poverty schools are increasingly identified as “in need of improvement” resulting in increased federal and local sanctions. The comparative analysis Kim and Sunderman (2005) provided of the racial and ethnic composition of schools in need of improvement (SINI) and schools meeting their AYP requirements was compelling. In six different states, a disparate pattern emerged. Schools with higher percentages of Latino and Black students were more likely to be designated as SINI and schools with higher percentages of White students were more likely to be designated as meeting AYP. 84 The authors found that schools identified as program improvement schools in New York and California, two of the most diverse states in the nation, contain over 70% of students identified as Black or Latino. The authors also analyzed free and reduced price lunch data and determined significant positive correlations between Black and Latino and lowincome status and negative correlations between Asian and White ethnicity and lowincome status -- suggesting that Black and Latino students are more likely to be categorized in two subgroups. This is important because the more subgroup targets a school has to meet the more likely it is designated as failing by federal definitions. Ultimately, Kim and Sunderman conducted the quantitative analysis needed to empirically demonstrate that flaws in NCLB measurements hold grave implications for educational equity; the mean proficiency construct singles out Black and Latino lowincome students by placing them in multiple subgroups that virtually guarantee that schools with high concentrations of these students are federally defined as in need of improvement and subjected to sanctions. This research makes a significant contribution to the discussion regarding the controversy surrounding NCLB and the consequences of sole reliance on high stakes tests as measures of school performance. What remains is to capture the human story of teachers and students experiencing this phenomenon. Examining the effects that being labeled as ‘failing’ has on students and communities who are actually making progress may prove to be particularly illuminating. However significant and “scientifically-based” like most cogent contributions, those of Kim and Sunderman seem to have been ignored by an administration and compliant Congress that is intent on identifying urban schools, teachers, and communities as ‘failing.’ 85 Other researchers also focus on the inequities imbedded in standardized tests on the whole. For example, Yeh (2006) called for more inclusive measurements of student achievement. More inclusive measures of student achievement would provide teachers with more meaningful achievement data. While prohibited by NCLB for accountability purposes, Yeh noted that computer-adaptive testing provides rapid reporting, diagnostic measures of individual student growth, and individualized levels of difficulty. According to the review of the literature, current uniform standardized testing requirements do little to inform teachers, students, or parents of individual student growth or teacher and school effectiveness. In addition, Yeh argued that the slow reporting aspects of the nonadaptive tests mandated under NCLB cause needless student and teacher frustration due to the irrelevance of test results to day-to-day classroom interactions. In Minnesota, Yeh (2006) designed a qualitative phenomenological study comprised of 50-minute interviews with a total of 61 respondents in order to determine teacher and administrator perceptions about how diagnostic, growth information, rapid results, and appropriate levels of difficulty test characteristics influence understandings of the usefulness of state-mandated and computer-adaptive tests. Yeh defined statemandated tests as standards based tests mandated under federal legislation; they use a single, flat measurement of student achievement and only report whether student achievement is high or low. Yeh defined computer-adaptive tests as standards based tests that are used in some districts to measure student progress; the tests are simultaneously scored, provide real-time adjustments for level of difficulty to avoid learner burnout or frustration, and produce detailed reports that help instructors individualize curriculum. 86 Yeh hypothesized that more inclusive, adaptive test formats will increase perceptions of test usefulness, decrease student stress, and improve teaching and learning. Yeh conceded that the purpose of phenomenological research is not to produce generalizable conclusions, however, it was argued that because the implementation of nationwide computer-adaptive testing is now economically foreseeable, the perspectives of teachers and administrators may hold some universality. The findings of Yeh demonstrated that teachers and administrators alike believe that computer-adaptive testing provides more detailed diagnostic information, timely analysis of student performance, information about individual growth, and a variable level of difficulty that is appropriate for low-achieving and high-achieving students. Despite study limitations, Yeh presented a compelling argument for incorporating features of adaptive testing in order to expand the federal definitions of acceptable measurements of student achievement. Yeh suggested that these revisions would produce test data that is more descriptive, encourage test formats that are more inclusive of learning styles and preferences, and make timely notifications needed to align instruction to student needs possible. Yeh demonstrated that teacher and administrative perception of test usefulness is defined not by federal sanctions or blanket statements about school performance. Instead, teacher and administrative perception of test usefulness is directly influenced by how applicable data rendered from tests are to the classroom and the extent to which assessments help individual students achieve greater understanding of the standards. The research of Yeh also presented an important discussion of the inequities inherent in using singular, nonadaptive instruments to measure student performance. 87 The fact that over 900 school districts currently use computer-adaptive tests makes the possibility of implementing such tests at the national level conceivable. However, nationwide implementation would require significant financial support. Given the failure to adequately fund its current mandates, it seems unlikely that the proponents of NCLB will be willing to invest the funds needed to authenticate and individualize testing and truly measure student progress by incorporating computer-adaptive testing in its measurements of student achievement. Teacher Preparation and Autonomy A second driving force behind the authorization of NCLB was promises to improve the quality of teaching by placing a focus on teacher preparation and qualifications. At the crux of NCLB mandates related to teacher preparation is the nebulous concept of “highly qualified teachers”; as educators attempt to adjust to the pressures placed by NCLB, it becomes more apparent that the definition of what is highly qualified according to NCLB mandates varies widely and there are multiple challenges to address in order to meet the requirements outlined in the law (Neill, 2006; Selwyn, 2007; Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003). One of the primary recommendations of The No Child Left Behind Commission (2007) was that policymakers more clearly define exactly what a highly-qualified teacher is and how teachers may achieve that goal. Nevertheless, while the definitions of highly qualified teaching vary, it is clear that teacher preparation practices resulting from NCLB implementation are ill preparing teachers, particularly those who serve urban schools (Talbert-Johnson, 2006). 88 Additionally, emergent mixed-methods research suggests that on the whole, teachers in urban school districts such as Los Angeles appear to hold unfavorable opinions of NCLB implementation due to the negative curricular and social effects of high-stakes testing (Brint & Teele, 2008). In practice, NCLB poses detrimental consequences for teacher preparation and autonomy. As curriculum becomes increasingly standardized so does instruction, teacher behavior, and expression. An additional reality of the NCLB goal to ensure highly qualified teachers is the attack on traditional teacher preparation programs and the introduction of a host of alternative teacher certification programs. Many of these alternative teacher certification programs have questionable and widely varied requirements. Nevertheless, in addition to viewing the current systems as broken and burdensome, leading pundits of the school reform movement have even gone as far as to propose that the majority of teacher education colleges should be “blown up” and continue to forge radical changes to teacher certification that portend even further deskilling and deprofessionalization (Hoffman & Sailors, 2004). While current systems suffer attack, fast track certification systems, placing primary emphasis on questionable federal branch definitions of the “scientific” teaching of reading and math, enjoy rapid installment. Meanwhile, NCLB continues to function as a scourge in the PreK-12 teaching profession. For example, public perception of teachers is at an all-time low and poor instructional practices and unqualified teachers are on the frontlines when problems of American education are considered. Ingersoll (2005) and Hinchey and Cadiero-Kaplan (2005) provided important theoretical discussions of how teacher professionalism and autonomy is affected by the social dialogue surrounding NCLB implementation. 89 In a scholarly essay, Ingersoll (2005) addressed problems related to the “highly qualified teacher” component of NCLB legislation. Ingersoll opened with a discussion of how numerous states have pushed for increased pre-service teacher training and alternative certification as avenues to increase teacher quality. Ingersoll argued that the teacher-deficit perspective underlying many assumptions about underqualified teachers ascribes the deficits in education to teachers alone while ignoring the organizational and occupational contexts. In summation, he argued that the problem of underqualified teachers is rooted in the low social standing of the teaching profession as a whole. First Ingersoll (2005) reviewed the literature related to teacher qualifications and concluded that a consensus on the definition of a highly qualified teacher was lacking. Next, several examples of empirical studies were listed in effort to demonstrate that teacher qualifications are connected to student achievement. Finally, Ingersoll concluded with the NCLB definition of a highly qualified teacher as the final conceptualization of highly qualified teaching but did not connect how this definition promotes the teacherdeficit perspective or the low social standing of the teaching profession as a whole. In an analysis of 1999 data from the USDE Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) Ingersoll significantly demonstrated that even prior to NCLB legislation, the understanding of teacher qualifications defied conventional wisdom. The most compelling argument resulting from the analysis of SASS data was that we must examine how schools are managed including how teachers are assigned once hired because the primary generator of out-of-field teaching is principals assigning teachers to classes that do not match their degrees or certifications due to numerous organizational pressures. 90 Ingersoll (2005) made strong arguments about the mechanisms underlying out-offield teaching—an area where empirical study is limited. While policies like NCLB focus on increasing training requirements or flooding schools with new teachers through alternative certification programs, the roots of the problem must be understood in order to exterminate the weeds. The argument that we must confront and openly address the social status of teaching as a profession is compelling and potentially informative. By capturing the daily experiences of teachers serving in the field, it is hoped a thick description of their experiences under hostile conditions produced by the implementation of NCLB will assist readers in critically considering whether this policy is improving teacher quality in urban schools. In a similar vein, Hinchey and Cadiero-Kaplan (2005) grappled with the concepts of teacher professionalism and autonomy in the context of a political climate that is hostile towards teachers. In a scholarly essay framed by critical and transformational humanist theory, Hinchey and Cadiero-Kaplan posited that school choice, the fulcrum of vouchers and charter school arguments, is an integral overt aspect of NCLB legislation that is spurred by the covert, long-term goal of privatizing public education and deprofessionalizing teachers. The authors reviewed two reports (by the Teaching Commission and the National Business Alliance), financial data, efforts to implement scripted programs, and instances of overt hostility towards teacher organizations and unions to support their argument. Ultimately, Hinchey and Cadiero-Kaplan argued the recommendations being offered for reshaping teacher education contain the emergent theme of private organizations and corporations attempting to reshape and redefine the work of education. 91 Hinchey and Cadiero-Kaplan (2005) contextualized their discussion in the present realities of American public schools. They reviewed significant data that showed a trend of increased participation and availability of educational vouchers in numerous states. The authors noted that information available to parents in public schools encourages them to use their vouchers to attend faith-based private schools or to opt out of public schools. The authors outlined how federal legislation and funding has made that option all the more feasible. Hinchey and Cadiero-Kaplan posited that the explosion of charter schools is not motivated by goodwill for student achievement; instead it is motivated by profit. The authors noted that the number of charter schools managed by for-profit education management organizations (EMO) has exploded to constitute four-fifths of EMO contracts. Indeed, Vergari (2007) and others corroborated the finding that charter school reforms are producing marked changes in the power structures and funding practices of public schools. That public schools might be usurped by charter schools is a goal evident since America 2000, Goals 2000, and their latest reincarnation NCLB. Hinchey and Cadiero-Kaplan (2005) argued that the promotion of excessive onesize fits all curriculum/assessment resultant from the NCLB implementation presents a boon for certain publishing companies. The authors used cited nepotistic relations between government and business as demonstrated by McGraw-Hill profit increases following endorsements by members of the Bush family and overt instances of endorsement by representatives of USDE when addressing school district leaders (see Giroux, 1998 and Moustafa & Land, 2002 for detailed discussions of corporate corruption in education; see Garza, 2006 and Metcalf, 2002 for instances of corporate corruption involving the Bush family and test preparation/educational programs). 92 The authors characterized this mixture of business and government as harmful to students and anti-democratic. The societal implications include a citizenry made submissive to a restrictive, scripted curriculum -- students who can perform well on standardized tests but are unable to think independently and creatively. This is an increasingly observable trend in middle schools students who have been subjected to scripted reading programs and lack critical thinking and problem solving skills at higher levels each year during NCLB implementation. Furthermore, as Johnson (2006) noted, the business paradigm reliance on test scores reveals the dangerous, untested hypothesis behind NCLB that “…all the happy successful schools will grow and prosper, [and] all the ‘bad’ failing schools will disappear someplace” (p. 36). Hinchey and Cadiero-Kaplan (2005) posited that the proliferation of alternative teacher certification routes made possible by NCLB “highly qualified” teacher requirements is a boon to private companies with ultimate goal of eliminating rather than controlling teachers. The authors noted the increased propensity for professional development sessions to feel more like product implementation sessions than exchanges about effective teaching strategies; anecdotal evidence of questionable validity from teachers they knew who left the teaching profession and data from one qualitative study were used to support this assertion. However, the expansion of companies such as Sylvan Tutoring Services into teacher preparation and the discussion of states streamlining alternative certification private programs are more compelling evidence to support their claims. Hinchey and Cadiero-Kaplan argued that profit will not be achieved until labor costs are reduced via dismantling and thoroughly discrediting teacher unions, which comprise the nemesis in this struggle for public funds. 93 Hinchey and Cadiero-Kaplan (2005) offered strong arguments for their position. The information presented was credible and ominous. The linkages between government and business are increasingly transparent and intertwined to the disadvantage of both public school students and teachers. The authors made compelling arguments that current practices resulting from NCLB increase hegemony and move increasingly towards privatizing public schools by marrying them to EMOs while subjugating teacher education and practices to the visions and missions produced in corporate boardrooms. While this work is significant to understanding how NCLB implementation affects teacher preparation and autonomy, it would be best followed by qualitative inquiry to capture the narratives of teachers struggling to educate rather than promote textbooks or the latest “scientifically-based” program. The Interests of Students and Communities A final argument supporting the authorization of NCLB was that it extended protection to the interests of students and communities. However, NCLB makes little reference to student accountability and the practices resulting from its implementation have already demonstrated negative effects for students of color and divergent students. Popham (2005) noted that the high-stakes testing environment propagated by NCLB harms both teachers and students because it contributes to curricular reductionism, excessive test preparation, and unethical test preparation practices; consequently, “these three negative consequences… seriously erode the quality of education many of the nation’s children are now receiving” (p. 66). The erosion of educational quality is particularly evident in urban schools. 94 Gooden and Nowlin (2006) asserted that the reliance on standardized tests as the sole measure of progress towards closing the achievement gap ensures continued failure and distraction from meaningful educational progress. Nevertheless, proponents of NCLB assert that a focus on the basics of reading and math to the detriment of subjects such as social studies and history is a good trade-off because there were no advocates from that discipline when Congress crafted NCLB and such subjects can easily be incorporated in the effective teaching of reading and math teaching. For example, Kress (2007) asserted, the narrowing of curricula only takes place when “…teachers and/or administrators allow that to happen. It's pathetic. Poor practitioners do this and then blame it on NCLB. Ridiculous... Indeed, science, history, poetry, and so much other material can be utilized significantly in the effective teaching of reading” (p. 32). Rightfully, Kozol (2006) noted that the absence of social studies and history in particular under NCLB reforms is troublesome for urban schools; the reservation of social education as a privilege for students in wealthy schools results in a greater social apartheid that only widens and maintains the current achievement gap. In addition to dumbing down teaching, NCLB implementation promotes the alienation of students who do not fit the mainstream. Because of its reliance on mean performance, students deemed unsuccessful suffer greater ostracism when schools are pressured to further categorize students into special programs to meet AYP. Meier (2005) explained that when “it comes to children outside of the mainstream (children of color, of the poor, those with handicaps, or limited English proficiency), NCLB forces local districts to engage in one-size fits all practices that ignore the needs of these children”; NCLB encourages districts to push these subgroups out in order to meet AYP (p. 71). 95 Still, the proponents of NCLB persistently pander to community interests by promising sweeping reform with the best interests of students and communities in mind and the deliverance of all students and their communities into educational enlightenment by ensuring uniform standards via universal expectations of absolute performance levels for all students. However, Frattura and Topinka (2006) and the Public Education Network (2006) offered important albeit tentative insight into how NCLB is actually affecting the interests of students and communities. Frattura and Topinka (2006) analyzed the theoretical foundations of separate educational programs under the implementation of NCLB; they noted that current policies encourage assigning students to remedial subgroups in order to avoid accountability fallout. This is a social justice issue because many students suffer mislabeling and unfair tracking as states, schools, and teachers struggle to meet the accountability requirements of federal legislation. Frattura and Topinka presented the theoretical premises that encourage schools and therefore societies to alienate and oppress certain groups of children. Initially, separate program models were defined as those wherein units of homogeneously grouped students deemed unsuccessful in general education are separated from other students. The authors cogently noted that the measure of academic success is membership in a normed group – with the norm defined by the performance of White middle class students. The authors included English as a Second Language (ESL), at-risk programs, and cognitive disability and learning disability programs as examples in their argument that such programs by virtue of their separateness, result in the oppression of subgroups. 96 Frattura and Topinka (2006) argued that separate programs oppress by marginalizing students of color and lower social classes as well as “gifted” students due to their separation which serves to further encourage their improper characterization as socio-emotionally dysfunctional when the students really only want to belong. The inclusion of Gifted children at this juncture was confusing because this subgroup does not fit the definition of separate program models as previously defined (students deemed unsuccessful in general education). Moreover, the socio-emotional characteristics of Gifted children is a hotly debated topic in education and no consensus exists among experts some of whom note that marked socio-emotional differences between the Gifted and others persist irrespective of program design. Furthermore, as Gentry (2006a) noted, the deficit-based educational programs and remedial curricular approaches propagated by NCLB work to marginalize Gifted children more than separate programs ever could. Additionally, Frattura and Topinka stated that separate programs act to remove the student from the classroom resulting in missed instruction. While this may be true of ESL programs in rural areas with small percentages of ELL students, it is not the case in urban schools. For example, at the urban school in Los Angeles where I have taught for almost a decade, over 60% of the almost 3,000 students are in ESL classes. The dissolution of this program in the name of social justice and inclusion would mean that students would not receive the specialized instruction they need to acquire English. Instead of dissolving ELL programs and bilingual education programs, NCLB must be significantly revised to address the realities of changing demographics and accommodate rather than marginalize students who are ELL because soon they will represent the majority of students in many states (Abedi, 2004; Johnson, 2007; Lazarín, 2006). 97 Frattura and Topinka (2006) outlined how a perspective rooted in structuralfunctionalism has led to the understanding of the problem of school failure in light of a medical model of the separate programs construct. The authors traced how the current creators of our educational programs that seek to address failure in school operate from a modernist perspective rooted in functionalism. The positivist obsession with objectivism was said to be the guiding theory of knowledge and foundation of scientific management theories that dominated the educational administration. Frattura and Topinka persuasively argued that functionalist scientific management regards the rationale for student failure as a deficit in the student rather than as interplay between students and their environment. It was argued that a paradigm shift is currently occurring in the social sciences from positivism to objectivism; they suggested that the theory of antifoundationalism might be an important bridge in rearticulating disability and otherness. The argument that the emergence of critical theory has played an important part in the paradigm shift is important because it captures the active essence of this theory. The authors presented persuasive arguments that through antifoundationalism, the old ways of functionalism may be discarded for the liberation of all students; specifically, reconstructing or recontextualizing the locus of the problem of disability from an antifoundationalist perspective involves viewing it as a product of “dynamic interaction” between individuals and their environment so that the environment is viewed as troubling or disabled rather than the individual person. This reconceptualization is certainly intriguing, but it is unclear whether the authors are a mite liberal in their assessment of the speed and scope of this paradigm shift. 98 Overall, Frattura and Topinka (2006) presented a strong argument for the reevaluation of the theoretical assumptions guiding current educational practices of increasingly segmenting and categorizing students to meet NCLB accountability requirements. As data becomes disaggregated, the move to reinstitute tracking systems may become more compelling for school administrators. The fiscal implications of their suggestions deserve further attention in the discussion of educational equity and social justice. Questions that remains are: at this time, would students best benefit from merging all funds and dissolving special programs and would the interests of all students truly be served by such a decision? Little is known about how the public views NCLB. The federal government has made limited effort to solicit the input of parents and communities in a meaningful manner to determine how NCLB has affected their lives. The Public Education Network, a nationwide organization of parents and interested participants, presented an interesting summary of public opinions from data gathered via large-scale public testimonies (almost 2,000 audience members and participants) in 10 different states between September 2005 and January 2006 and an Internet survey. Only the summary of the hearings is addressed in this critique. The summary of the findings and full report did not include an in-depth discussion of methods used to ensure data trustworthiness; there is no discussion of how data from the testimonies was aggregated or themes were coded. Nonetheless, the findings of these unprecedented public hearings about NCLB should receive some regard. Public Education Network (2006) determined that people seemed skeptical about whether a single test should be used to determine if students and schools are failing. 99 The effects of high-stakes testing were viewed as detrimental to students who reported inadequate academic support and lack of information about SES promised by NCLB. Parents echoed the concerns of NCLB opponents in complaints of unauthentic extensions of provisions and opportunities for school involvement. Public Education Network (2006) identified two overarching recommendations for access to information during the continued implementation of NCLB. The first recommendation was to reduce the isolation schools have from “helping” institutions in their community by ensuring closer connections among schools and community agencies. However, this may only provide the impetus for religious organizations to claim their stake in public schools alongside corporations. The second recommendation was that information and services be provided in a manner that is meaningful from reporting and explaining discrepancies between the data produced by federal and state accountability systems to providing access to information about supplemental services in a timely and multi-lingual format. Public Education Network (2006) identified two overarching recommendations for the functioning of schools during the continued implementation of NCLB. The first recommendation was a broadening of the definition of “highly qualified” to include cultural competency and proficiency with data-based instruction. These suggestions seem reasonable because how can one reach students without the cultural competency required to understand them? In addition, data-based instruction seems to be a crucial component to individualizing instruction; a teacher must analyze qualitative and quantitative trends in student performance in order to appropriately differentiate instruction. Additionally, an incentive system was suggested to attract and retain teachers at low-performing schools. 100 However, the theoretical and practical difficulties in defining highly qualified teachers and teacher proficiency were outlined by previously reviewed articles (Hinchey and Cadiero-Kaplan 2005; Ingersoll, 2005; Yeh, 2006). Similarly, the incentive system is one that unionized professionals find objectionable in principle because it promotes divisiveness, competition rather than cooperation, and does not address overall problems with low-rates of teacher compensation. The second recommendation was that the federal government make an effort to enforce the parental provisions of NCLB and additionally provide training to parents so that they can participate in meaningful ways. While this recommendation seems reasonable, one wonders where the funding will come from when National fiscal attention remains overextended due to global war efforts. Public Education Network (2006) presented an important missing piece in the dialogue about how NCLB affects American communities—the voices of students, parents, and community members. However, the failure to include a discussion of methodological design and procedures leaves some question about the veracity of the conclusions drawn from the data. It would be interesting to view the raw data from the recorded proceedings in order to properly code and substantiate the conclusions. Even with these inadequacies, the findings seem to be tacitly congruent with the general perceptions the public has about NCLB. Questions abound about whether NCLB promotes or impinges educational equity. The proponents of NCLB suggest that pressuring all schools to meet a single level of absolute performance by the 2013-2014 school year is the best way to ensure equity. Additionally, it is of implied that if parents are empowered to transfer students to schools that are known performers, failing schools will zip into shape accordingly. 101 Unfortunately, the supply and demand metaphors of corporations do not transfer well when applied to community organizations like schools. Additionally, the promise of such provisions is not a reality for most due to poor dissemination of information and inadequate funding (Neild, 2005; Public Education Network, 2006). Irrespective of promises to establish parental choice and ensure school excellence, the implementation of NCLB has three immediate consequences for school choice and educational spending. First, even NCLB proponents concede that little evidence exists regarding whether or to what extent attendance at charter and privately branded public schools affects student achievement (Loveless, 2005; Wilson, 2005). Thus, parents may unwittingly shuttle their children from one low-performing school to the next. Second, NCLB threatens low-performing schools with economic sanctions that disproportionately affect students from non-White, diverse, and low-socioeconomic communities (Fuller & Novack, 2004; Kim & Sunderman, 2005; Popham, 2005). Second, meting out sanctions to schools already struggling to keep head above water economically seems more directed towards destruction and dissolution rather than support and improvement. Finally, besides the failure to provide adequate funding for the implementation and support of its mandates, the workings of NCLB are not geared to provide increased public school choice. Instead, the surreptitious aim of NCLB is to open the door for private companies, individuals, and faith-based organizations to infiltrate and hijack public schools (Goodman, 2004; Shannon, 2004; Valenzuela, 2005). Indeed, recent White House missives have celebrated an increase of funding to faith-based organizations to target low-income schools deemed as failing by NCLB definitions (USDE, 2002b). 102 The White House Faith Based and Community Initiatives (2006) noted that more than 2.1 billion dollars in grants were awarded to religious organizations during 2005 fiscal year. Thus, under the guise of educational choice and equity, the mechanisms of NCLB aim to privatize public education, blur the separation of church and State, and limit State and local power to make financial and pedagogical decisions. NCLB measures student achievement, and subsequently teacher performance, solely by high-stakes test scores using nonadaptive test instruments that fail to provide teachers with meaningful data (Yeh, 2006). In addition, schools with low-income and diverse populations are disproportionately designated as failing (Kim & Sunderman, 2005). The pressure to teach to the test increases while the social view of teachers is significantly degraded (Hinchey & Cadiero-Kaplan, 2005; Ingersoll, 2005). The root of the teacher-deficit view is historic in nature; George, Jones, and Lee (2005) and Frattura and Topinka (2006) outlined the Weberian functionalist expressions inherent in highstakes testing mechanisms. High-stakes testing environments demoralize teaching professionals because they attempt to centralize, standardize, and codify instructional pedagogy, teacher behavior, dress, and instructional strategies. Additionally, Giroux (2003) noted that the hidden curriculum employed by high-stakes testing, “ensures that teachers are de-skilled as they are reduced to mere technicians… students [are] treated as customers in the marketplace rather than as engaged, critical learners, and that public schools fail so that they can eventually be privatized” (p. 73). Instead of leveling the learning experiences of all students (and why is that a goal deemed superior to individualizing instruction?), policies enacted as a result of NCLB threaten to widen student achievement gaps. 103 The learning experiences of students in urban communities reliant on federal Title I funds are being limited and restricted during NCLB implementation. As schools increasingly obsess with devoting more time to reading and math programs in order to meet their AYP, liberal arts curricula are pushed aside. This development critically damages the massive numbers of low-income and students of color attending public schools. As the Council for Basic Education (2004) noted, “in our effort to close achievement gaps in literacy and math, we are substituting one form of educational inequity for another, denying our most vulnerable students the kind of curriculum available to the wealthy” (p. 272). Similarly, McNeil (2005) noted that the high-stakes testing policies of NCLB are “driving down the quality of public education and driving significant numbers of [Latino and African American] students out of school” (p. 57). A cursory examination of the alarming drop-out rates in urban communities such as Los Angeles lends credence to the reality of student disengagement resulting from increased emphasis on high-stakes testing rather than student-centered, whole-child education. Parents in communities with underperforming schools remain extremely misinformed about the provisions made available to them as a result of NCLB; its proponents claim that providing market-based intervention and SES to low- income students will improve instructional quality. However, as Burch, Steinberg, and Donovan (2007) noted, NCLB has virtually cleared the path for large national firms to dominate the SES market particularly in urban schools in a relatively unregulated manner. This is essential because it is a further move towards privatization and as Sunderman (2007a) noted, schools serving students of color and low-income students are more likely to be identified as failing and in need of supplemental services. 104 The reliance on large educational corporations to provide these services is problematic and further imbeds big business into the organizational structure of public schools. Howell (2006) suggested that the poor dissemination of information by districts and failure to provide multilingual information regarding services is largely to fault for low participation among students in SES programs. Additionally, Howell (2004) suggested that State and federal governments must begin to educate parents of school AYP figures; provide non-English speaking families with information in their language; and permit parents to choose any other school in their district, not just those that make AYP. When guardians are uninformed of the provisions made by NCLB, school choice is, once again, a misnomer reserved for the privileged of society. Ultimately, in practice, NCLB is punitive legislation that denigrates teachers, students, and communities while attempting to recast the role of federal government by expanding its powers to tyrannize struggling public schools. The efforts NCLB makes to expand federal power and limit local control are dangerous to the foundations of our Nation, and destructive for teachers, students, and parents. Saltman (2007) outlined how neoliberal policymakers employed NCLB as yet another tool to privatize education. Make no mistake, the willful expansion of the federal reach into the daily business and lives of States and citizens is expressed in its actions-- from aggressive involvement with marriage via vigorous support for the Federal Marriage Amendment to the expansion of its jurisdiction over public schools. NCLB is merely another instance of potentially effective pubic policy tainted by extremist elements of the Republican party and ultimately, as Danforth (2006) argued, faith and policymaking must be kept separate in order to preserve the inclusive, democratic principles that founded this Nation. 105 The initial question that spurred my evaluation of literature related to NCLB implementation was: how has NCLB implementation affected the daily life of (a) classroom teachers, (b) out-of the classroom teachers, and (c) administrators at urban middle schools (e.g. pedagogically, socio-emotionally, professionally, curricularly, ad infinitum)? In addition, it was anticipated that the experiences of urban educators would provide insight into the effects on communities and students. The six landmark pieces related to NCLB implementation reviewed here provided insight into three primary areas in which schools are experiencing challenges related to NCLB but they do not focus on urban schools. Consequently, the guiding question persists and is best elucidated by preeminent educational scholar Michael W. Apple. Apple (2008) outlined the role of the critical researcher in the current educational climate. Apple stated that educational researchers must remove themselves from the ivory towers or safety of Bakhtinian balconies of detached observation commonly lauded as exemplifying objectivist and positivist research. Apple asserted that educational researchers must become embedded in the current reform struggles and act as secretaries of those groups of people and movements engaged in challenging ineffective educational reforms. Subsequently, it becomes clear that it is the responsibility of educational researchers to track and inform others of the human responses or difficulties urban schools are experiencing in relation to NCLB implementation. This relational analysis is the missing piece in the detailed accountability measures contained in the law. Apple forewarned that there is no safe or neutral way to effect educational transformation, but maintained that educational researchers are charged with illuminating the ways that policy and practice intersect. 106 Such research endeavors involve risk and danger and may cause discomfort when readers are confronted with the lived realities of others; but the benefit to both participants and those observing results in a raising of critical consciousness for all and this is what is needed to address the challenges and understand the experience of NCLB implementation in urban schools. Hence, urban educational researchers have an ethical obligation to raise the critical consciousness regarding NCLB. Qualitative inquiry into the implementation of NCLB is needed to provide a human component to explicate the effects of this policy on urban schools and effect policy changes. Because, ultimately, as Kohn (2005) concluded, “the government’s role is not to impose crippling mandates and tests, but to work with parents, teachers, and students to help public schools survive and flourish” (p. 97). The current climate produced by NCLB implementation policies ensures the continued stalling of meaningful education reform as long as educational choice and equity, teacher professionalism and autonomy, and the interests of students and communities continue to be affected. Politically-oriented action research is needed to contribute to the emerging body of research by providing much needed insight into how the implementation NCLB affects the daily lives of urban teachers and students. It is by directly engaging with these problems via educational research that we will be able to affect positive change and better inform citizens and policymakers of the challenges that we face in order to improve American education. Theoretical Assumptions While the literature review established the social and empirical contextual significance of this research topic, its theoretical influences require equal expounding. 107 The theoretical assumptions of this research are grounded in the framework of critical education theory. Critical education theory is a subset of educational sociology that flourished in the 1970s as an education-centered outgrowth of critical social theory. It is strongly influenced by social conflict theory, symbolic interactionism, and urban political theory. There is no singular theory or founder of critical education theory, instead several theorists unite around the theme of education as a vehicle to empower oppressed people to become critical, transformational citizens that actively resist the educational control agendas of dominant socio-economic groups. Some notable critical education theorists include Jean Anyon, Jane Van Galen, Henry A. Giroux, Myles Horton, Paulo Freire, and Michael W. Apple. The importance of purposeful, reflective social action to address social inequality and injustice is unique to critical education theory and represents an expansion of prior structural-functionalist educational theories that historically focused primarily on examining schools as tools of social reproduction and assimilation. Epistemological Orientation of the Author Despite positivist illusory insistence upon the existence of researcher objectivity, one basal assumption of this research is that all components of research design are colored by the experiential, empirical, and theoretical assumptions the researcher brings to a study. Indeed, more than one existential philosopher has grappled the polemic debate regarding objectivity and subjectivity. The tensions between these extremities have been outlined by numerous authors. For example, in effort to rehumanize the research quest, Polanyi (1958/1974), Lakoff and Johnson (1980/2003), and Bourdieu (2001/2004), suggested transcendent epistemologies incorporating objectivity and subjectivity. 108 Irrespective of the debate surrounding objectivity and subjectivity, one quality of exemplary qualitative research is that all assumptions of the researcher are embraced, problematized, and transparently disclosed rather than cloaked behind easily manipulated numeric indicators of reliability and validity. Indeed, the qualitative practice of reflexivity, or “…the rendering explicit hidden agendas and half-formed intentions…” requires that the voice of the researcher remain present throughout the research process and encourages critical reflection among participants in order to make transparent and reduce power differentials between the researcher and participants (Gough, 2003, p. 25). Undoubtedly, the qualitative paradigm rejects the positivist assertion that scientific research must seek to illumine a singular universal truth that is generalizable to all people in all places. Assuredly, it follows that the qualitative orientation is directly opposed to the Cartesian epistemological worldview that knowledge is as a set of propositions that can be “objectively measured”; indeed, Karaba (2006) noted that policymakers who support NCLB are engaging in a form of epistemological colonization by rejecting America’s pragmatist traditions in favor of privileging one form of knowledge to the exclusion of competing conceptions. The positivist insistence that knowledge is comprised of a set of propositions to which noumenal reality corresponds is problematically restrictive for educational research and practice. Similarly, as Lincoln and Guba (1985) noted, “the positivist claim depends on a bifurcated view of reality, namely that there is a ‘real’ reality and an ‘apparent’ reality” (p. 162). Instead, a foundational epistemological assumption of qualitative researchers is that knowledge is socially constructed and comprised of multiple realities. 109 This epistemological orientation asserts that instead of one truth, there are many truths and many paths towards increased understanding and human betterment. Subsequently, from the qualitative perspective, research problems may not have tidy solutions and generalizability is the responsibility of the reader; furthermore, truth is regarded as parallel, relative, and welcomingly celebrated as a cacophony of multiple perspectives. These assumptions align with critical education theory, which provides the overarching framework for this research; more specifically, it is framed by critical education theory as expounded by Apple (1979/2004; 2000; 2006) and liberatory education theory as elucidated by Freire (1970/2007; 1970/2000; 1985). Critical Education Theory Grounded in his experience as an urban elementary school teacher, Applean critical education theory provides three primary assumptions that influence this research: (a) The nature of urban education is political, (b) the intent of standards-based education reform is to proliferate and maintain socio-cultural hegemony in school curriculum, and (c) audit cultures insidiously promote socio-cultural stratification in schools. As an educator in an urban public school that is currently under siege due to its “failing” status, these assumptions hold experiential and theoretical salience. On a daily basis I witness how American public schools are politicized and corporatized while private test preparation and other for-profit companies command a larger portion of school budgets in order to re-educate teachers to train students to do well on tests and help close the achievement gap with a host of instructional products and remedies. 110 The test preparation business is one that involves billions of dollars and schools nationwide identified as SINI are being forced to contract with these companies in order to demonstrate that they are making efforts to improve as stipulated by NCLB AYP requirements. Education is political in nature. Apple (1979/2004; 2000) outlined how neoliberal and neoconservative elites have formed powerful alliances that effectively work in concert to dismantle educational and social policies that serve people of color, the poor, and women, and seek to corporatize public education and government. In addition, numerous authors have traced the political nature of urban schooling by detailing how the economic dependence of urban schools is fueled by the macroeconomic policies of the federal government, thus making the nature of urban education inherently political (Anyon, 2005; Stone, Henig, Jones, Pierannunzi, 2001). We are reminded that present events surrounding educational policy bear witness to the fact that revolutions can move radically in reverse, wherein leading conservative pundits call for the restoration of a Eurocentric utopia that effectively never existed in the first place. To the same end, Apple (1979/2004) noted that the social and labor structures of American urban cities (and to a more limited extend its suburban and rural cities) have been stratified into two vastly separate but interdependent classes – the economic elite and a servant class subjected to economic and racial domination: Current neo-liberal and neo-conservative policies in almost every sphere of society—marketization, national curricula, and national testing are representatives of these policies in education—have differential and racializing effects. While they are often couched in the language of “helping the poor,” increasing accountability, giving “choice,” and so on, the racial structuring of their outcomes is painful to behold in terms of respectful jobs (or lack of them), in health care, in education, and in so much more… 111 for Black children, Latino/a youth, and so many more, the American city is often a truly dangerous place not only for their present but their future as well. (xi) Noblit (2007) also outlined how economic hierarchies maintain racial, patriarchal, and epistemological domination. Similarly, Berliner (2006) noted that social class segregation in schools reflect racial/ethnic segregation patterns, “so all educational efforts that focus on classrooms and schools, as does NCLB, could be reversed by family, could be negated by neighborhoods, and might well be subverted or minimized by what happens to children outside of school” (p. 950). Through NCLB, the economic alliances of the elite have in effect imposed a disconnected, punitive policy that chastises children of poverty and does not consider the adverse situations under which they are being asked to memorize and reproduce the dominant knowledge. Currently, the economic alliances are best demonstrated in the continued overwhelmingly bipartisan support of NCLB. The superficial political party lines amongst the economic elite become increasingly blurred as the true agenda of seeding and maintaining Eurocentric socio-cultural hegemony becomes more blatant. The intent of standards-based education reform is to maintain socio-cultural hegemony in school curriculum. In his seminal work, Apple (1979/2004) argued that schools are the primary institutions used to maintain economic and cultural reproduction of social class relations. In summation, the class-biased selection of what formal and informal curriculum is to be taught functions to reproduce the cultural and economic structures needed to maintain a capitalist society. These elements work in tandem to maintain dominance over the populace in all elements of life from the cradle to the grave. 112 Apple argued that education is increasingly modeled on scientific, technical, and corporate models that view student diversity or deviation from the norm as characteristics that need to be measured, categorized, and constrained; these models provide the impetus for current reforms like NCLB that seek to standardize and privatize public education. This is particularly problematic for Gifted and Special Education students who, by definition, are outside of the norm. With an emphasis on standards-based testing as a sole indicator of student achievement, NCLB is merely another tool in a long string of policies intended to maintain socio-cultural hegemony in school public curriculum by promoting a nationalist, Eurocentric curriculum and ensuring that fundamentalist Christian and marketplace ideologies do not lose their relevance or importance in an increasingly pluralistic educational environment. Buras (2006) noted that the dominance of ruling groups is maintained via insidious alliance building, whereby the elite offer oppressed communities reforms as compromises to garner assent and sustain cultural dominance. Audit cultures insidiously promote socio-cultural stratification in schools. Apple (2006) defined audit cultures as those that involve “making the state more ‘business friendly’ and importing business models directly into the core functions of the state such as hospitals and education- in combination with a rigorous and unforgiving ideology of individual accountability” (p. 100). It is interesting to note that under NCLB, accountability is defined and sanctions against urban schools are meted out based on levels of student performance on standardized, norm-referenced tests. In essence, schools and teachers must set unrealistic measurable objectives that are approved by USDE and must subsequently self-flagellate when those goals are not met. 113 Apple argued that NCLB is only the most recent example of educational policies couched in progressive language that functions as a political spectacle masquerading as a policy benefiting the least powerful actors in society while cloaking a conservative agenda to shame, marketize, and privatize public schools. The implementation of NCLB certainly has facilitated numerous marriages between districts and corporations; charter schools, educational consultant companies, and textbook companies have flourished (see Berkowitz, 2005 for a detailed discussion of the Walton Family Foundation Charter School Initiatives and other financial efforts to undermine public education). Liberatory Education Theory In addition to Applean critical theory, this research is guided by three themes presented in Freirean liberatory education theory: (a) Dialogue and expression are essential components of educatory and social liberation, (b) critical consciousness is promoted by individual and community reflection, and (c) social transformation occurs through social action. While Freirean theory is grounded in his experience as an adult educator, his pedagogical and social insights are ever increasingly applied to Pre/K-12 education as national demographics shift and produce greater numbers of children of color particularly in urban public schools. In his seminal work, Freire (1970/2007) argued that the greatest promise for transformative social justice lays in systematically restructuring the power dynamics embedded in and reproduced by schools through dialogic liberation. Providing the structural supports to give a voice to the voiceless is at the fulcrum of Freirean liberatory education theory. 114 Accordingly, it is interesting to recall the dearth of students and teachers from urban schools utilized as consultants when Congress approved NCLB in 2001 and considers its reauthorization in 2009. Yet, NCLB is often touted as the primary vehicle to promote equity and bridge the achievement gap that persists between students of color and Whites. The current body of research involving NCLB and urban schools often does not capture the voices of those directly affected by it. Instead, much of the research related to the implementation of NCLB is quantitative, opinion-based, or philosophically oriented. Qualitative research is needed to rectify this imbalance by attempting to describe the lived experiences of teachers, administrators, and students in urban schools during the NCLB era. Freire (1970/2007) described “banking education” as the traditionalist social phenomena whereby learning is teacher-centered rather than student-centered and the role of the teacher and educational institutions is to deposit the knowledge sanctioned by the dominant culture into the minds of students as if their minds are blank slates waiting to be filled. The traditional authoritarian banking model of education involves a deficit view of learners wherein teachers are viewed as sages and students are viewed as ignorant. Indeed, Spring (2007b) discussed how NCLB accountability reliance on high-stakes testing as a measure of educational outcomes devalues non-White languages and cultures: Standardized tests create uniformity in the knowledge taught in public schools… high-stakes tests created by state governments make a single culture the norm of schooling. The No Child Left Behind Act represents a victory for those advocating that schools teach a uniform American culture. (p. 135) The model of teaching propagated by NCLB proponents reflects the intentions of its architects who seek to actively and directly oppose liberatory education in urban schools. 115 Alternatively, liberatory education theory calls for a reconceptualization of teaching and learning to focus on dialogue and expression rather than rote memorization and reproduction of the facts sanctioned by the dominant culture. Freire (1970/2007) posited that dialogue is a unique human phenomenon that is an existential necessity; in essence it is “… an encounter [by] which the united reflection and action of dialoguers are addressed to the world which is to be transformed and humanized” (p. 88). Furthermore, authentic dialogue is dependent upon the dimensions of praxis, namely reflection and action; thus, praxis is defined as “the relation between theory and practice, between critical thinking about the world and consequent actions in it” (Freire, 1970/2000, p. 3). The sacrifice of action results in mere verbalism or empty intellectual pontification; similarly, the sacrifice of reflection results in mere activism (Freire, 1970/2007). Hence, in order to produce social transformation, education-centered dialogue must be rooted in the dimensions of praxis. Ultimately, the significance of using dialogue to examine the lived experience of individuals is dependent upon conscientization, or existing in and with the world. Freire (1985) explained that conscientization is an exclusively human process involving reflection upon rather than a mere reflection of material reality (as proposed by behaviorists); it is “…constituted in the dialectic of man’s objectification of and action upon the world” and therefore superior to objectivism and solipsism which fail to produce true praxis because “in either case, man is not engaged in transforming reality…[and] praxis is only possible” where the objective-subjective dialectic is maintained” (p. 69). Critical reflection that incorporates both objectivity and subjectivity is an essential component of liberatory education theory. 116 Indeed, Freire (1970/2007) emphasized the importance of critical reflection when engaging in authentic dialogue; he described critical thinking as “…thinking which perceives reality as a process, as transformation, rather than a static entity – thinking which does not separate itself from action, but constantly immerses itself in temporality without fear of the risks involved” (p. 92). This emphasis on dialogue tied to social action and critical reflection is essential to raise the critical consciousness of participants. Discussion and Conclusions The literature review discussed six landmark works related NCLB implementation in urban schools and established that it presents challenges in the daily lives of educators and students; a dearth of research related to the positive impact of NCLB implementation in urban schools was noted (see Table 12). Additionally, the multidimensional challenges of NCLB implementation are garnering increased public attention (Irons & Harris, 2007; Noddings, 2007). In addition, several scholars suggest a complete recrafting of the standardized test based accountability system that would involve low-stakes rewards as opposed to high-stakes punishments (Abernathy, 2007; White & Rosenbaum, 2008). Table 12 Summary of Themes, Sources, and Limitations Discussed in the Literature Review Source Limitations Theme 1: Educational Choice and Equity Kim and Sunderman (2005)a found that high poverty and racially diverse schools are more likely to be deemed as failing under NCLB accountability measures. Yeh (2006)b called for more inclusive, individualized, and comprehensible measurements of student achievement such as computer-adaptive testing which is prohibited by NCLB. These sources provided an important discussion that raised questions about the equity issues surrounding NCLB accountability measures. What remains is to capture the human story of the teachers and students experiencing this phenomenon. Examining the effects that being labeled as ‘failing’ has on urban educators and students who are actually making progress may prove particularly illuminating. 117 Table 12 (Continued) Summary of Themes, Sources, and Limitations Discussed in the Literature Review Source Limitations Theme 2: Teacher Professionalism and Autonomy Ingersoll (2005)c discussed the mechanisms underlying out-of-field teaching as a contributing factor to the low social status of teachers. Hinchey and Cadiero-Kaplan (2005)d argued that the hostile political climate produced by NCLB has been manufactured to deprofessionalize teachers and privatize public schools. Both sources provided important theoretical analyses related to the implementation of NCLB. However, the theoretical discussions were supported with limited qualitative data that illuminates for the reader the effects that the implementation of NCLB is having on schools as a whole and urban schools in particular. Theme 3: The Interests of Students and Communities Frattura and Topinka (2006)e noted that NCLB These sources came closest to providing the accountability policies encourage teachers to voice of teachers and students in relation to the implementation of NCLB. However, the focus assign more students to remedial subgroups in order to avoid accountability fall-out. Public was nationwide as opposed to targeting urban Education Network (2006) f people are schools. Many urban schools are experiencing displeased with the effects of high-stakes testing difficulties related to NCLB and more research and lack of information related to NCLB is needed to capture the voices of urban teachers supplemental services. and students. a Multiple quantitative analyses of standardized test data from seven diverse states. b Qualitative phenomenological study conducted in Minnesota in order to determine teacher and administrator perceptions about how diagnostic, growth information, rapid results, and appropriate levels of difficulty test characteristics influence understandings of the usefulness of state-mandated and computeradaptive tests. c Scholarly essay addressing the highly qualified teacher provisions of NCLB. d A scholarly essay addressing the intentions of the hostile political climate produced by the implementation of NCLB. e A scholarly essay examining the accountability components of NCLB. f Summary of public testimonies in 10 different states between September 2005 and January 2006 and an internet survey. Preliminary quantitative research suggests that administrators are generally more positive towards NCLB implementation than teachers (Hamilton et al., 2007). However, mass-produced survey research is incapable of uncovering the differences in teacher and administrator opinions about NCLB implementation. 118 Qualitative research is needed to discover whether the perceptions and experiences of urban educators are congruent with the stated intentions of NCLB proponents to increase educational choice and equity, improve teacher professionalism, and protect the interests of students and communities. While the key theoretical and largely quantitative inquiries reviewed in the literature provided insight into emerging research related to NCLB implementation, beyond sparse anecdotal sidebars, little empirical/qualitative inquiry has occurred to capture and describe the impact the implementation of NCLB has had on urban teachers, administrators, and students . Subsequently, there are several implications this research holds for educational policy, practice, and future research. The humanist interest in rooting research and theory in the lived experience of its subjects bridges the Applean critical education and Freirean liberatory education theoretical frameworks which appropriately ground the literature review for exploring how NCLB has impacted the educational experience of students and teachers in urban schools. These perspectives call for an insertion of the voices of those most affected by policy into the dialogue surrounding the effectiveness of NCLB. The theoretical assumptions provided by these frameworks provide an appropriate lens through which this issue is examined and understood in greater detail than other perspectives might provide (see Table 13). 119 Table 13 Summary of Theoretical Assumptions Critical Education Theory a Liberatory Education Theory b This approach assumes: (a) The nature of urban This approach assumes: (a) Dialogue and education is political, (b) the intent of standardsexpression are essential components of based education reform is to proliferate and educatory and social liberation, (b) critical maintain socio-cultural hegemony in school consciousness is promoted by individual and curriculum, and (c) audit cultures insidiously community reflection, and (c) social promote socio-cultural stratification in schools. transformation occurs through social action. a As expounded by Apple (1979/2004; 2000; 2006) b As elucidated by Freire (1970/2007; 1970/2000; 1985) Consequently, Critical Education Theory provides an appropriate overarching framework for future empirical educational research focused on social justice. Social justice is concerned with the equal treatment and inclusion of all people as stakeholders in the human experience. Social justice approaches work to promote the expression of all people in ongoing dialogue that is geared towards social change and transformation. Hence, the Critical Education theoretical assumptions that education must be liberatory for oppressed groups, that there is no singular universal truth, but instead many truths that deserve equal inclusion in the curriculum and instruction, and that transformation and empowerment are possible through dialogue tied to critical reflection and action provide frameworks that are sure to encourage people-centered, qualitative research in education rather than the current emphasis on quantitative data. The Freirean and Applean emphasis on critical reflection as a tool of social transformation remains at the forefront of this politically-oriented action research endeavor to elevate the critical consciousness of readers. By using the interpretive interactionism methodological framework outlined by Denzin (2005) coupled with focus groups as data collection tools, it is anticipated that readers would consider whether reauthorizations of NCLB are advisable and furthermore, if a repeal is in order. 120 Interpretive interactionism provides an appropriate approach because it is used to “examine the relationships between personal troubles and the public policies and public institutions that have been created to address those troubles”; succinctly, there is often a significant disconnect between programs and policies intended to help troubled persons and the and experiences of the persons they are meant to serve (Denzin, 2005, p. 3). Hopefully, the establishment here that the implementation of NCLB has not positively impacted educational choice and equity, teacher professionalism and autonomy, and the interests of students and communities coupled with a thick description of the lived experiences of the implementation of NCLB from urban educators and students will help raise the awareness of the elite architects of future educational reform policies that seek to better the lives of poor unfortunates. 121 CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY Overview of the Chapter Bogdan and Biklen (2007) noted that the purpose of politically-oriented action research is promote social change and “…conduct research that will help provide information that will help people who have the authority to develop programs and make other policy decisions”; the researcher acts as a citizen attempting to influence the political process through data collection about programs or policies with the goal of “…promoting social change through that is consistent with the advocates’ beliefs. Using the data collected, they develop pamphlets, press conferences, speeches, congressional and legal testimony, TV shows, and exposés to influence change” (p. 221). The politically-oriented action research model helps provide a focus on activism so that the dialogical processes engaged in result in more than intellectual posturing. Indeed, Freire (1997) cautioned against importing the dialogic model without rooting it in social praxis; in such situations, dialogue becomes merely a form of group therapy wherein the participants vent and the researcher believes that by merely providing a forum they have somehow empowered people; meanwhile, no sort of social change has been effected. While a dissertation will be produced, other activities such as those mentioned above will be engaged in order to ensure that practitioners and policymakers alike hear the voices of all participants. In this section the methodological assumptions are outlined, the research site is described, and discussions of the methods of data collection, selection of participants, credibility/trustworthiness and ethical issues, description of the data analysis process, and limitations are provided. 122 Methodological Assumptions The methodological assumptions of this study are influenced by interpretive interactionism as outlined Denzin (2005). According to interpretive interactionism: (a) every person is a universal singular who must be studied as a single instance of more universal social experiences and processes, (b) interpretive studies are biographical and historical; they are grounded in the historical moment that comprises the life experiences of the subject, (c) value free interpretive research is impossible because every researcher brings their own preconceptions and interpretations to the problem being studied, (d) The purpose of interpretive research is to develop an understanding of directly lived experience rather than engage in causal modes and methods of analysis, and (e) the experiences of everyday life “will not submit to experimental, statistical, comparative, or causal control and manipulation… the languages of ordinary people can be used to explicate their experiences” (p. 46). Many of these assumptions are grounded in postpositivist traditions and antithetical to traditionalist research. It calls for a radical reinterpretation of science as it relates to the study of human phenomenon. Instead of focusing on the “why” of social phenomena, the goal of interpretive interactionist research is to explore the “how” of social phenomena. Denzin noted that to explore the “how” of a phenomena requires that the researcher be fully immersed in the phenomena under study, because it is only through total immersion that meaningful interpretations of human experience can be developed. As such, from the interpretive interactionist framework, objectivity and generalization are rejected as primary goals of research. The responsibility for generalization is left to the reader; it is the choice of the reader to accept or reject the findings as applicable to their situation. 123 Denzin noted that by focusing on thickly describing the universal singularity of each individual experience, “interpretive researchers seek to build interpretations that call forth readers’ naturalistic generalization” (p. 47). Indeed, as Krathwohl (1998/2004) noted, qualitative research involves “…understanding how the world looks to the people being studied and how those people act on that information. Research findings are local and context bound. Multiple interpretations of situations may be quite acceptable, depending on how various persons perceive it” (p. 237). In summation, from the qualitative point of view, generalizability is the task of the reader, not the researcher. Because interpretive interactionism is a critical qualitative methodology, these methodological assumptions are congruent with those previously outlined in the review of the literature and theoretical assumptions. Description of the Research Site This research took place at a public middle school in Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) that serves approximately 2,500 students in grades 6-8; I have worked at the site for almost a decade. To maintain the participant confidentiality, in this manuscript the school is identified as Urban Middle School (UMS). The size of the school is comparable to other LAUSD middle schools. In 2007-2008 UMS was a PI Year 5 school and maintained that status in 2009. In the 2008-2009 school year the school was staffed with 1 principal, 5 assistant principals, 6 counselors, 1 nurse, 1 social worker, 1 pupil services and attendance counselor, 106 teachers, 11 office/clerical staff, and 10 certificated others (including librarians, coordinators, and coaches). UMS is a Title I school. The student population is 99% Latino, 1% African American, 92% economically disadvantaged, and approximately 34% of the students are identified ELL. 124 Community and District Overview UMS is located in the community of East Los Angeles and the school is a part of LAUSD. Generally, the households in this District have a higher number of single-parent households with children. In this District the number of adults with a high school diploma or bachelor’s degree is lower than State averages; additionally, household income distributions are lower in this District compared to the State (see Domina, 2006 for a discussion of how low educational attainment negatively impacts student achievement). Table 14 summarizes community demographics for the District and State. Table 14 UMS Community Demographics 2008 Characteristic This School’s District Household Characteristics Number of Households Single-Parent Households with Children (%) Adults with at Least a High School Diploma (%) Adults with at Least a Bachelor's Degree (%) 1,512,365 13.5 72.9 27.7 12,438,755 12.1 81.1 29.7 State Household Income Distribution (%) Less than $15,000 $15,000-$29,999 $30,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000-$99,999 $100,000-$149,999 $150,000 or More 16.4 17.8 20.1 16.2 9.8 10.3 9.4 10.5 13.8 18.2 18.0 12.6 14.7 12.2 Population Population Population Density Median Age 4,603,733 7,024 33 36,904,294 234 34 Population Distribution by Age (%) 4 Years or Younger 7.1 5-19 Years 20.0 20-44 Years 39.6 45-64 Years 22.9 65 Years or Older 10.4 Note. All data is from State Education Data Center (2008a) 7.1 20.0 37.8 24.0 11.1 125 UMS is located in District 5 of LAUSD. According to the 2007-2008 District Report Card (LAUSD, 2009b) District 5 middle schools serve 16, 236 students that are comprised of 92% Latino, 3% African American, 4% Asian, 37% identified ELL, 12% Special Education, 10% Gifted and Talented, and 81% economically disadvantaged students. While the stated number of ELL students is 37% that is the number of students who are identified as ELL, in practice, it is well known that the number of ELL students is much higher than these reports state; reportedly 20% of students reclassified as fluent in English in 2007-2008 and 49% of students improved on the CELDT test. In 20072008, 16% of District 5 eighth graders scored proficient or advanced on the History CST and 34% scored proficient or advanced on the Science CST. Students in District 5 middle schools are making modest gains in CST English and Math scores. In the 2007-2008, 23% of students scored proficient or advanced in English (up 5% from the previous year) and 22% scored proficient or advanced in Math (up 6% from the previous year). However, in 2007-2008 only Asian, Filipino, and Gifted and Talented students in District 5 met AYP targets in English and Math. Table 15 summarizes District 5 CST proficiency levels for Math and English in 2007-2008. Table 15 District 5 CST Proficiency Levels in Math and English 2007-2008 English Proficient or Advanced (%) Math Proficient or Advanced (%) Subgroup African American 16 6 American Indian 22 19 Asian 58 65 Filipino 54 46 Latino 22 20 White 33 27 English Learners 2 4 Special Education 2 2 Gifted and Talented 80 77 Economically Disadvantaged 23 22 Note. The report card function is new and does not yet include CAPA scores. 126 Educational Options UMS has several educational options in addition to the supplemental services it is required to offer as a result of NCLB sanctions. In the 2007-2008 school year, approximately 10% of its students were enrolled in the School for Advanced Studies program which aims to differentiate instruction for Gifted and Talented learners. Additionally, 151 students participated in the Advancement Via Individual Determination Program (AVID), 340 students participated in the school’s Magnet programs, and 1,222 students participated in SLCs (CDE, 2008e). Staffing Profile As of 2007-2008, UMS employment of Hispanic and Asian teachers was higher than the State and District averages and the number of White teachers is lower than State and District averages; approximately 50% of teachers were Hispanic or Latino, 28% were White, 11% were African American, 10% were Asian, and 1% were Filipino (CDE, 2008f). The cause of this irregularity is unclear as the administration is highly unstable so it may be in error to attribute it to administrative choice. However, it is interesting to note that in the 2008-2009 school year the administrative staff was comprised of four males and two females; one of the males were White, one male was Hispanic/Asian, and the remaining administrators were all of Hispanic/Latino descent. The number of fully credentialed teachers at UMS is lower than District and State totals; in 2007-2008 approximately 79% were fully credentialed, 15% were on emergency credential, and the remainder were District or University Interns; in addition, the average of years teaching was 8.8 and average years in the District was 8.4 while approximately 30% of the teachers were first or second year teachers (CDE, 2008g). 127 Finally, in the 2007-2008 school year approximately 1% of teachers at UMS held a doctorate, 20% held master’s degree plus 30 or more additional units, 15% held a master’s degree, 32% held a bachelor’s degree plus 30 or more additional units, and 32% had a bachelor’s degree (CDE, 2008i). Student Demographics The student population at UMS is 99% Hispanic or Latino (approximately 98% are Mexican) and 1% African American. In 2007, LAUSD spent over $1000 more per pupil than the State of California did on average (CDE Business Services, 2007). This seems appropriate because in 2006, while the State reported that 47.6% of the students were economically disadvantaged, LAUSD reported that 76.8% of its students were economically disadvantaged, and UMS reported that 94.3% of its students were economically disadvantaged (State Education Data Center, 2008b). In addition, in 2006 the average number of students per teacher was 23.2 which was higher than District and State averages (State Education Data Center, 2008c). Certainly, the students at UMS have special needs based on their highly segregated population and the high numbers of economically disadvantaged students that attend the school. Organizational Insight Recently, in effort to provide its students with a more personalized experience in 2004-2005 the District directed many of its middle and high schools to reorganize into smaller learning community structures. The initial structure of the school mirrored the early experimental school-within-a-school design; Greer and Short (2002) noted, “the early models were designed as miniatures of the large school” (p. 9). 128 While the initial structure allowed for surface level restructuring of the school, it was not adequate for the systematic changes needed for school reform (see Figure 4). In the initial year, the restructuring effort was largely one that was on paper and there were no substantial observable effects in day to day operations, it remained the same with the principal controlling many decisions. Principal Assistant Principal: Instruction Assistant Principal: Operations Assistant Principal: Scheduling Grade Level Counselors School Site Council Math and Technology Academy School for Advanced Studies Academy Magnet Academy Humanities Academy Health and Fitness Academy Figure 4. UMS Initial SLC Organizational Structure Although the school was designated as site-based managed, in the initial organizational structure, the principal made all decisions and the role of the School Site Council was periphery. 129 The assistant principals played traditional roles and counselor workload was divided by grade level. While teachers had some input into the redesign process and naming of academies, little took place regarding instructional training and development under the smaller learning community design. Additionally, little training occurred regarding the establishment of collaborative interdisciplinary teams. Figure 5 is a revised organizational structure that was introduced in the 2005-2006 school year; it addressed many of the problems and is currently experiencing uneven implementation due to the introduction of a new administrative team that has been philosophically unsupportive of the academy structure. Principal and School Site Council Assistant Principal: Instruction Assistant Principal: Attendance Assistant Principal: Operations Assistant Principal: Counseling Counselor assigned to multiple grades Counselor Assigned to multiple grades Counselor assigned to multiple grades Counselor assigned to multiple grades Humanities Academy Math and Technology Academy Health and Fitness Academy School for Advanced Studies and Magnet Academy Figure 5. UMS Revised SLC Organizational Structure 130 The revised structure attempted to place the principal and school site council on the same decision-making wavelength. This symbolic change has helped the school community feel more involved and accountable for the redesign process. Unfortunately, the move to SLC was not widely accepted by administration or teachers. In addition to the lack of administrative support for SLC organizational structure, currently, there is much resistance to SLCs from teacher Union members who largely composed the School Site Council and felt as though their input was pushed to the wayside by the restructuring efforts of the previous principal. In the new organizational design, assistant principals and counselors continue to play traditional roles and have the added responsibility of being held accountable for specific academies. Once fully implemented, this structural change would benefit the teachers and students because the assistant principals would have a specific community of faculty and learners under their charge that is manageable in scope and size. Additionally, physically moving teachers on the site to reflect their academies and instructional teams has limited excessive student movement throughout the sprawling campus and added to the feeling of academic families. The physical move also helped teachers to conceptualize the change to academies in a meaningful manner. At the current time, teachers express that the change has been in name and physical movement alone because no visible, tangible changes have taken place in the way the school operates. It is anticipated that the revised organizational model designation of specific administrators and counselors to academies will also assist with coordinating and managing the successful leadership practices Cordeiro and Cunningham (1999) suggest such as study groups, instructional walk-throughs, teacher conferences, school visitations, and instructional conferences. 131 Under the revised organizational model, assistant principals are expected to have greater ownership, responsibility, and accountability for the academy they are charged with overseeing. When coupled with a change in the physical layout of the school, this organizational structure change would assist administrators in the more effective coordination of teacher assistance and observation for evaluation and support purposes. Assistant principals would also have the opportunity to demonstrate instructional leadership by beginning to develop academy-wide instructional training, instructional norms, and promoting teacher collaboration. The recent restructuring has included physical and symbolic changes to the organizational structure that supports SLCs. While the principal continues to be the main figurehead that reports to District officials, increased inclusion of the School Site Council in the restructuring effort has helped increase teacher buy-in and willingness to adapt to new models. Given the hiring of one additional counselor, the revised functions of school counselors and assistant principals coupled with the physical reorganization of the campus will help students and teachers alike embrace the smaller community feel and enhance the campus environment. It is a tangible change that encourages and promotes teacher leadership and engagement by the mere instance of physical proximity. The revised organizational model also provides the structural changes needed to ensure SLC accountability and structural redesign by encouraging teacher line stability and more stable teacher teaming partnerships. In addition to the challenges resulting from its PI status, unstable administrative leadership at UMS renders the veteran faculty resistant to the change process and curricular reform efforts are kaleidoscopic in nature. 132 In 8 years of observation, there have been almost 10 principals and a host of assistant principals. Additionally, in 2006, the school lost key classified staff including its Office Manager who served the site for almost 20 years and the Attendance Clerk who served the site for almost 15 years. In 2004, the founder of the Parent Center was tragically killed in an automobile accident on the school perimeter. In addition to these challenges, in 2008-2009, Kolostyak, Lee, and Martinez (2009) found that during the Fall semester the UMS school administrative staff observed the classrooms of Black, White, and Asian teachers at three times the rates of their majority Hispanic/Latino colleagues and that females were observed more often than male teachers. While the physical changes have taken place, there is still a long road ahead for this organization in terms of teacher leadership and shared governance. The recent operational restructuring will benefit from embracing and promoting a more enlightened view of teacher leadership behaviors that will surely have positive benefits for students and staff members. Unfortunately, as pressures to raise scores and perform intensified, the UMS School for Advanced Studies that serves Gifted students experienced increased aggression from the administrative staff. In the 2007-2008 school year the administration attempted to dismantle the School for Advanced studies program by reassigning Gifted faculty to teach regular education students so that those standardized test scores would be raised in order to help the school meet AYP goals. In 2008-2009, UMS Gifted students were subjected to weekly schoolwide test preparation drilling using released questions from the CSTs even though they have consistently demonstrated proficiency and been the only subgroup to meet AYP goals without such interventions (see Hoffman & Nottis, 2008 for a discussion of resistance to test preparation by Gifted middle school males). 133 The principal explained this was equitable because every child was expected to do the same thing; Gifted educators argued it was inequitable and an ineffective use of time because it disregarded differentiating for ability and demonstrated performance levels. Throughout Local District 5 administrative teams at middle school sites are becoming more hostile towards the only group of students consistently meeting AYP goals. The 2008-2009 LAUSD Budget Crisis and Organizational Culture In 2008-2009 the budget crisis intensified at UMS and throughout LAUSD and unstable leadership trends threatened the organizational structure of LAUSD. Continual disputes resulted in the hasty mid-year replacement of LAUSD Superintendent David L. Brewer III with Ramon C. Cortines in December 2008. Shortly after his appointment, Ramon C. Cortines informed LAUSD staff members that the State’s financial situation had worsened and as a result the District must make “deeper than expected” mid-year budget cuts before the end of the current school year. Cortines noted: We are now anticipating layoffs… we will provide as much notice as we can, or is required through contracts with our bargaining units. We are also anticipating reassignments of non-school-based personnel back to school sites. Some will return to classrooms. Some will return to administrator positions. Because of bumping rights, others will unfortunately lose their jobs… The immediate goal [is to] address at least a $250 million shortfall for the current school year and begin planning for even larger deficits for the 2009-2011 school years. (personal communication, January 6, 2009) In January 2009, the LAUSD School Board authorized Superintendent Cortines to release over 2,000 teachers. United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) noted that the first people to be released under the plan would include new teachers employed by the District for two years or less, a move that would hit high priority schools like UMS particularly strongly because of the high number of new teachers traditionally assigned to urban schools. 134 UTLA Vice President Gregg Solkovits highlighted the organizational challenges to come: In secondary schools where we have been focusing on trying to close the achievement gap, we are going to disrupt small learning communities… And all of a sudden you’re going to displace people with probationary or provisional status, bring in people, plug them into teams where it’s an artificial construct, they won’t know what the curriculum is and you’re doing this in the middle of the school year (Solkovits, 2009). UTLA President, A.J. Duffy suggested that the School Board would even consider such cuts made January 13, 2009 the saddest day in LAUSD history. President Duffy noted continual mismanagement of funds in LAUSD and that there were several other options available to board members where they could find the $50 million cutting teachers would provide. Duffy noted: You need to cut the $845 million dollars in ‘outside contracting’ of which 89% are non-educational. You need to cut the 8 mini-districts; you can’t afford them anymore. That’s a saving of $60 million dollars. You need to do away with all the non-state and federally mandated assessments and tests and yes our figure is $150 million dollars because what your folks are not telling you Ray is all the people hours that go into prepping, and testing and retesting over and over again. And while you’re at it, why don’t you get rid of this TV toy that you have [LAUSD Board meetings are televised]. We can’t afford it. If you’re going to let teachers go, get rid of this TV toy, get rid of the mini-districts, cut the heart out of the bureaucracy once and for all. (Duffy, 2009) It remains to be seen how proposals of mid-year layoffs and restructuring at all levels of the district (which have produced high levels of staff dissatisfaction) will affect UMS and LAUSD student test performance for the 2008-2009 school year. AYP Profile UMS faces several school issues related to curricular reform and the process for change. One challenge that UMS faces is external pressure from federal agencies it is fiscally reliant upon due to the socioeconomic status of its enrollees. 135 Like hundreds of other urban schools, UMS is designated as “failing” due to its inadequate progress towards federal indicators that seek to attain 100% student performance proficiency rates by 2013. Currently, UMS is in advanced years of Year 5 PI status portending decreased local control and intervention by external agencies with the threat of complete school restructuring. UMS is not alone; in 2008, all LAUSD District 5 middle schools were in PI status-- only one of the eight middle schools which opened in 2006 was in Year One and the remaining including UMS were in Year 5. Several of the schools had been in Year 5 PI status for more than 2 years. UMS 2007-2008 English and Math CST Proficiency Levels According to the 2007-2008 UMS Report Card (LAUSD, 2009c) UMS served nearly 2,500 students that were comprised of 99% Latino, 1% African American, 34% identified ELL, 10% Special Education, 11% Gifted and Talented, and 92% economically disadvantaged students. While the stated number of ELL students is 34% that is the number of students who are identified as ELL, in practice, it is well known that the number of ELL students is much higher than this report states; reportedly 19% of students reclassified as fluent in English in 2007-2008 and 47% of students improved on the CELDT test. In 2007-2008, 17% of UMS eighth graders scored proficient or advanced on the History CST and 38% scored proficient or advanced on the Science CST. UMS students are making modest gains in CST English and Math scores, however, these gains are not enough to satisfy the AYP intermediate goal requirements outlined by the State of California in order to be compliant with NCLB. In the 2007-2008, 23% of students scored proficient or advanced in English (up 2% from the previous year) and 24% scored proficient or advanced in Math (up 7% from the previous year). 136 However, in 2007-2008 only Gifted and Talented students met AYP targets in English and Math. Table 16 summarizes UMS CST proficiency levels in 2007-2008. Table 16 UMS CST Proficiency Levels for CST Math and English 2007-2008 English Proficient or Advanced (%) 27 23 2 1 77 23 Subgroup African American Latino English Learners Special Education Gifted and Talented Economically Disadvantaged Math Proficient or Advanced (%) 9 25 4 2 85 25 Note. The report card function was implemented in 2009 and does not yet include CAPA scores. UMS English and Math CST Proficiency Level Trends In addition to examining the most recent test scores, it is important to understand UMS proficiency level trends. From 2003-3007 UMS sixth and eighth grade students demonstrated English CST score gains over time, but were still not proficient enough to meet federal AYP. NCLB implementation at UMS has not resulted in massive test score gains as pressure from the federal government increases each year or threats of restructuring loom. However, at every grade level in Math and English student performance continues to rise. In terms of California-based accountability systems that precede NCLB, UMS students have met or exceeded their API goals which paints a confusing portrait of test performance. Which measure is more valid, the pre-NCLB State-based accountability measure of API or the newly required AYP calculations of student academic achievement? UMS students have demonstrated consistent API growth and met their API goal each school year since NCLB implementation. Table 17 includes the percentage of students scoring proficient on CSTs and CAPAs over time and also includes API growth. 137 Table 17 UMS Proficiency Levels Trends for the CST, CAPA, and API Grade Level 2003 English CSTs Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 13.0 11.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 12.0 15.0 22.0 17.0 19.0 24.0 16.0 18.0 24.0 19.0 2004 2005 2006 2007 Math CSTs Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 13.0 12.0 9.7 19.0 14.0 11.5 20.0 22.0 11.0 24.0 25.0 18.0 19.0 19.0 12.3 English CAPAs Level 4 n.a. 88.0 n.a. 48.0 58.0 Math CAPAs Level 4 n.a. 63.0 n.a. 52.0 58.0 API Growth Grades 6-8 546 578 610 620 618 Note. All data is from State Education Data Center (2008d); n.a. means scores not available for that year. Method of Data Collection Prasad (2005) noted that the critical qualitative tradition employs participatory methods of data collection that acknowledge researcher values and encourage dialogue and participation of research subjects; it “…takes very seriously the involvement of research ‘subjects’ in all phases of social inquiry—research design, information gathering, and implementation” (p. 142). Because this research design sought to be participatory in nature, the research subjects were involved in numerous aspects of the research process. The involvement of participants in multiple aspects of focus group implementation and analysis is congruent with the goals of the research and the critical, dialogic theoretical assumptions and social realities contained in the literature review. 138 Winship and Repper (2007) traced the psychotherapeutic use of focus groups to the 1920s as more democratic research approach for facilitating the voices of marginalized groups with more recent application associated with political activism and policy analysis; indeed, the recent upsurge of focus group research is significant because, “the types of standardized measures often deployed in quantitative measures, do not, by definition, reflect the situation of minority or marginalized groups” (p. 128). Focus groups were employed as the primary data collection tool. Litoselliti (2003) defined focus groups as small, moderator-led structured groups with selected participants that are “…set up in order to explore specific topics, and individuals’ views and experiences through group interaction” (p. 1). While focus groups have a wellestablished methodological history as a marketing/corporate research tool, more recently focus groups are increasingly employed as needs assessment and policy analysis tools (Morgan, 1998a; Krueger & Casey, 2000; Stewart, Shamdasani, & Rook, 2007). Focus groups are theoretically and practically harmonious with the critical, politicallyoriented action centered, interpretive interactionist conceptual, theoretical, and methodological frameworks employed in this study. Kamberelis and Dimitriadis (2005) noted that because focus groups encourage dialogic relations in the field and the production of polyvocal texts, they represent a key research design “…where pedagogy, politics, and interpretive research intersect and interanimate each other… because of their synergistic potentials, focus groups often produce data that are seldom produced through individual interviewing and observation that result in especially powerful interpretive insights” (p. 903). Due to emphasis on interconnectivity of experiences, focus groups are beneficial for examining commonalities in the experiences of complex social phenomena. 139 However, if a researcher seeks to discover in-depth information about individual experiences, focus groups would not be suitable. Morgan (1998a) noted that focus groups are more appropriate to use than group interviews when the researcher seeks to “… gather substantial amounts of carefully targeted data within a relatively short time period…” and engage the participants in active comparisons of their experiences and opinions (p. 32). In this scenario, the benefits of using focus groups far outweigh the drawbacks and the goal of educating people about the implementation of NCLB is better served in a group setting wherein participant can engage in critical reflection about the phenomena. In addition, Morgan (1998a) and Stewart, Shamdasani, and Rook (2007) noted that focus groups are a particularly desirable research method to improve policy implementation or investigate complex behaviors and motivations when there is a gap between decision makers and those who must implement decisions. This is certainly the case with NCLB wherein there appears to be a significant gap between policymakers and the daily lived experiences of teachers, administrators, and students in urban schools. Table 18 summarizes the data collection timeline used in this study. Table 18 Data Collection Timeline June 2008 October 2008 Obtained approval to proceed from UC Irvine Institutional Review Board and LAUSD Research Review Committee. October 2008 Conducted recruitment of potential participants at a faculty meeting. November 2008 December 2008 Conducted 7 departmentalized focus groups concurrent with transcription and analysis. Conducted 7 member check interviews, coconstructed reliability matrix. January 2009 Continued data analysis and thematic confirmation. 140 Selection of Participants There is no particular number of focus groups that a research project must have in order to garner increased credibility. However, Morgan (1998b) noted the diversity of participants and complexity of the topic help determine the number of focus groups needed to reach theoretical saturation, or the point at which there is little data to be gained by adding more groups; the typical research project contains approximately three to five focus groups. The complexity of issues involved with NCLB implementation and the vast size of the school under consideration necessitates several focus groups. The composition of focus groups is a hotly debated topic. Because participants are expected to identify commonalities and openly dialogue, group dynamics must be carefully considered. It is often suggested that groups should be as homogenous as possible in order to ensure participant comfort (Litoselliti, 2003; Morgan, 1998b; Stewart, Shamdasani, & Rook, 2007). As a result seven departmentalized focus group meetings were conducted for this research project (see Figure 6); the groups were comprised as follows: (a) English and ESL teachers, (b) Math teachers, (c) Science teachers, (d) Social Studies teachers, (e) Physical Education teachers, (f) Special Education teachers, and (g) counseling staff. The focus group composition mirroring the departmental structure at UMS helped ensure that the participants were professionally comfortable with fellow participants because they were accustomed to weekly professional development activities that are departmentalized. As a result, focus group participants were candid in their responses and able to discuss content specific observations and perceptions regarding NCLB implementation at the school. 141 Due to their interactive nature, focus group participants are not randomly selected. Because the research seeks to illumine a particular social phenomenon or uncover participant opinions and commonalities, participant recruitment takes on an even more important role. Krueger and Casey (2000) noted that the researcher must maintain control of the participant selection process in order to ensure that selection bias is limited while participants are identified by demographic and observable characteristics, or screens. To be eligible for this research project, participants met the following screens: (a) employed at UMS, (b) direct contact with students on a daily basis, and (c) teacher (in the class or out of the classroom), administrator, or counselor at UMS. The screens ensured that participants had prolonged student contact needed to contribute meaningfully to a focus group dialogue regarding NCLB implementation at UMS. Once potential participants were narrowed from the pool of interested teachers, random sampling was employed to and to help limit selection bias names of eligible participants were pulled from a hat. English and ESL Teachers Science Teachers Focus Group Participant Screens (a) employed at UMS, (b) direct contact with students on a daily basis, and (c) UMS teacher (in the class or out of the classroom), administrator, or counselor Math Teachers Physical Education Teachers Social Studies Teachers Special Education Teachers Counselors Figure 6. Focus Groups and Participant Selection Screens 142 Krueger and Casey (2000) and Litoselliti (2003) noted that the recruitment process is often the most labor intensive aspect of focus group research design. It is difficult to secure participant initial interest and buy-in and even more difficult to ensure that they actually show up. One primary problem in securing participation is that of rapport – usually, the researcher is not a member of the organization being studied and therefore has not had prolonged professional contact and familiarity with participants. Because the primary researcher was employed at the research site for nearly a decade there was increased participant trust levels, willingness to candidly share their opinions and perspectives in a focus group setting, and receptivity to the initial idea. Essentially, the research participants trusted the primary researcher to respect and maintain confidentiality and were comfortable with speaking candidly without the worry that their statements might be reported to school or District administrative staff. In order to ensure that the recruitment process was uniform each time, a recruitment script and participation interest survey was devised to be utilized at each recruitment meeting (See Appendices B & C). However, usage of the recruitment script was not necessary because in October 2008 the researcher was able to conduct a single recruitment meeting during a faculty meeting that included all staff. The recruitment script is included in this manuscript so that other researchers may use it in replication studies. During the recruitment meetings, potential participants completed a participation interest survey (see Appendix C), heard background information about the purpose of the research study, were informed of the risks and benefits or participation, and finally, the incentives of participating were shared. 143 Litoselliti (2003) noted that a combination of monetary and non-monetary incentives should be provided in order to secure participant commitment and provide reciprocation for participant time and input. Providing each participant with a $20 gift card along with a toolkit containing a book and materials for social policy awareness provided an attractive incentive that satisfied participants who were motivated by monetary rewards as well as non-monetary rewards. Providing an incentive or compensation is a wellestablished primary motivator for focus group participation that has been shown to be more influential than personal interest in the topic and/or personal relationships with the moderator or other participants (Krueger & Casey, 2000; Morgan, 1998b). Each participant who was selected received a reminder flyer and two copies of the informed consent form one week prior to the focus group meeting and any questions were answered on an individual basis. Focus Group Survey Results There was strong interest among teachers to participate in a focus group related to NCLB implementation at UMS; approximately 70% of the faculty expressed interest in participating. However, all administrators and out-of-the-classroom teachers who were working as instructional coaches declined to participate. The reasons provided by these people ranged from fear of retaliation due to the controversial nature of the topic and lack of time. There was interest from two of the coordinators but they were unable to coordinate schedules for participation and their numbers were too small to conduct a focus group. While the standard number of participants in a focus group is 6-12 (Krueger & Casey, 2000; Morgan 1998b), Stewart, Shamdasani, and Rook (2007) noted that there are no general rules concerning the optimal number of size of focus groups. 144 Fern (2001) and Krueger and Casey (2000) noted that mini-focus groups with as few as 3-6 participants are also appropriate depending on research goals and homogeneity of participants. Accordingly this study features several mini-focus groups. The mini-focus group structure permitted the researcher to maintain an aura of familiarity in the focus group meetings which led to a more candid sharing of perspectives. Because the focus group interviews were held in departmentalized groupings, participants were familiar with one another due to weekly PDs held at UMS in departmentalized groupings. The experience ranges included in each focus group helped to enrich discussions and ensure that a wide variety of professional and experiential viewpoints were included in the findings. This study features 33 UMS teachers, the majority of whom had nine or more years of teaching experience. While the focus group interest survey only elicited how long potential participants had been teaching at UMS, total number of years teaching was clarified at each focus group meeting. While some of the participants had only been at UMS for a short time, several of the participants had previously taught at elementary schools and two of the participants were former administrators who returned to teaching during NCLB implementation. In addition, 2 of the participants had recently obtained their administrative credentials but remained in the classroom for the 2008-2009 school year. More than half of the focus group interview participants were female and there was an acceptable level of variety in participant age ranges. In addition, more than half of the participants identified themselves as Hispanic/Latino which is reflective of the unusually high number of Hispanic/Latino teachers employed by UMS. Table 19 summarizes the characteristics of focus group participants featured in this study. 145 Table 19 Focus Group Participant Characteristics Year of Teaching Experience Gender Age Ethnicity Counselors 9+ 0-2 0-2 9+ Female Male Female Female 31-35 20-25 26-30 41+ Hispanic/Latino Chicano Hispanic/Latino Hispanic/Latino English and ESL Teachers 3-5 3-5 6-8 9+ 3-5 9+ Female Female Female Female Female Female 20-25 26-30 31-35 31-35 41+ 31-35 Caucasian/White Hispanic/Latino Hispanic/Latino Hispanic/Latino Hispanic/Latino Chicana Math Teachers 3-5 9+ 3-5 9+ Female Male Female Male 26-30 36-40 20-25 31-35 African-American/Black Hispanic/Latino Caucasian/White Hispanic/Latino Physical Education Teachers 3-5 9+ 9+ 9+ Female Female Female Male 26-30 41+ 36-40 36-40 Hispanic/Latino Hispanic/Latino Asian/Pacific Islander Hispanic/Latino Science Teachers 6-8 9+ 9+ Female Male Female 26-30 Unspecified 36-40 Hispanic/Latino Unspecified Irish-American Social Studies Teachers 9+ 0-2 6-8 6-8 9+ Female Male Female Male Male 41+ 26-30 26-30 36-40 41+ Caucasian/White Hispanic/Latino Hispanic/Latino Latino Caucasian/White Special Education Teachers 0-2 9+ 9+ 9+ 0-2 6-8 3-5 Male Male Female Male Female Male Male 20-25 41+ 41+ 41+ 26-30 36-40 26-30 Hispanic/Latino Hispanic/Latino Caucasian/White Caucasian/White Hispanic/Latino Hispanic/Latino Hispanic/Latino 146 Focus Group Protocol Development Seven focus group meetings were held at UMS in November 2008; at each focus group, the same loose focus group protocol was used in order to ensure that focus groups addressed the same topics related to NCLB implementation; the interview protocol was flexible but detailed enough to facilitate replication and included the research rationale, probes/follow-ups, possible modifications, and approximate times for each aspect of the focus group meeting (see Appendix D). The protocol was synthesized from multiple sources. The introductory sections and probes are taken verbatim with minor alterations from examples provided by Litoselliti (2003). Stewart, Shamdasani, and Rook (2007) and Krueger (1998a) noted that focus group interview protocols are less structured than survey questionnaires (which often provide questions and potential responses), the biggest difference is that in focus groups, the questions are less structured and openended. In addition, the scope and sequencing of the questions used in this study followed the movement from general to specific questions that are informed but not constrained by the themes identified in the literature review. In the focus group setting the researcher acts more as a moderator who guides the discussion and has taken care to carefully plan a non-threatening environment wherein participants influence each other by responding to ideas and comments in the discussion. Using the suggestions outlined by Krueger (1998b), all aspects of the focus group from the physical arrangement of the room, snacks made available, statement and maintenance of the ground rules, to careful observation of facial expressions and gestures made by participants, ensured that participants were comfortable throughout the focus group meetings. 147 Because the approach is interactive and dialogue centered, the researcher did not engage in taking detailed field notes during the focus groups, instead, the researcher actively participated, facilitated, and created an atmosphere of comfort via full-body attentiveness to the dialogue as it occurred. Participants signed informed consent forms guaranteeing confidentiality and granting permission to video and audiotape the focus groups with the assurance that recordings of the proceedings would be destroyed following transcription and all stored transcripts will be de-identified. Transcription of the focus groups occurred immediately following focus group sessions in order to capture thick descriptive as well as interpretive observational notes. The observational field notes were taken in a dialectical format modeled after Creswell (1998) to permit appropriate bracketing of objective as well as subjective observations (see Appendix E for a model of the observational field notes format). The observational field notes format suggested by Creswell is congruent with the postpositivist aims of qualitative research which seek to center the researcher in the interpretive process rather than feign objectivity – this is congruent with the literature review and theoretical assumptions previously outlined. There was an informal verbal exit survey to determine participant feelings about the focus group proceedings and follow up interviews that functioned as member checks occurred during the data analysis stage. The member check interviews required quick data transcript production in order to ensure continued participant engagement with the process. At the close of the focus group session, a token monetary and non-monetary incentive was provided to all participants. 148 Description of the Data Analysis Process Krueger (1998c) explained that the purpose of focus group analysis is to depict reality as understood and experienced by others; it is contingent upon the information provided by participants. Moderators are cautioned against rigidity in predetermining or selecting analytical frameworks. It is noted that the inductive properties of focus group analysis reflect the dynamic, situationally responsive nature of focus group research design; for example, “sample size is clarified in route, and questions are adjusted and fine-tuned en route. The analysis protocol should also be responsive to en route signals from the environment” (p. 18). When reporting focus group results all factors such as context, body language, gestures, and tones of voice should be analyzed so that the analysis moves beyond merely reporting the words stated by participants (Litoselliti, 2003). Several analytical considerations provided by Krueger were considered such as: the meaning of words used by the participants, the context of participant responses (including possible sociological contextual triggers), internal consistency (how often participants changed their opinions during the discussion), the frequency of comments or topics, the extensiveness of comments (how often participants addressed certain topics or issues), the intensity of comments (the depth of feeling or passion conveyed via voice volume and tonality), and the specificity of responses (those based on specific experiences as opposed to vague and impersonal responses) . In addition to the analytical considerations suggested by Krueger, the data analysis was guided by the interpretive interactionist constructs of thick description and thick interpretation. 149 Interpretive interactionism is an evaluative research methodological framework that is participant-centric because the researcher acts as an advocate for the misrepresented and underrepresented in order to bridge the gap between the (mis)conceptions of policymakers and the lived experiences of those affected by policy. Hence, the focus is on providing a thick description of the lived experiences of participants. Denzin (2005) noted that thick description “attempts to rescue and secure the meaning, actions, and feelings that are present in an interactional experience… [while] thick interpretation gives meaning to the descriptions and interpretations given…” (pp. 116-117). This study utilized transcript-based analysis. Audio and visual recordings of each focus group meeting were reviewed and analyzed multiple times in order to identify emergent themes across the focus groups. Krueger (1998c) explained that transcriptbased analysis is the most rigorous and time intensive option for focus group analysis. The researcher was advised by numerous sources to hire out transcription services and there was a strong, natural impetus to somehow forgo transcription as the researcher awaited some moment of profound gnosis that would lead into ascension towards Chapter 4 following incubation of the data. However, after a week elapsed with no omen of such a forthcoming miracle, I began transcription after the second focus group in the dialectical format discussed previously; this format is central to the emergent, reflexive qualitative approach. Each 90-120 minute focus group required 8-12 hours for transcription with analytical bracketing. However, it was time well invested; through self-transcription, the researcher becomes immersed in the data and is subsequently afforded with a deeper understanding of the data. The transcripts were printed on color-coded paper, responses were de-identified, and each participant comment was numbered. 150 As themes emerged, a large surface was utilized in order to cut and place the color-coded transcripts underneath thematic subheadings. These subheadings became issues/themes that were listed on the reliability matrix and confirmed via member check interviews. Protection of Participant Confidentiality Given the political nature of the subject matter contained in this study, protection of participant confidentiality in reporting the findings was a great concern that the teachers featured in this study expressed to the researcher. The rigors of thick description required that the researcher disclose the demographic information of the 33 teachers featured in the study in order to assist readers with making better informed conclusions regarding transferability of the data. However, in reporting the findings, while departments were identified, the genders and/or age range of teacher comments was intentionally not disclosed so that comments could not be pinpointed to individuals by local administrators or others who may be familiar with the site departmental demographics even with the protective measures including pseudonymous masking of the school site for the audience at large. Credibility/Trustworthiness and Ethical Issues The credibility of data obtained from focus groups depends on a well-crafted focus group protocol that includes questions or probes that are comprehensible for participants and facilitate open dialogue. Given the situationally responsive, interactionally bound nature of focus groups, pilot tests are difficult and inappropriate. Krueger (1998a) noted that “the true pilot test is the first focus groups with participants” (p. 57). As suggested by Krueger, the credibility of data was enhanced by a two-fold process. 151 First, the focus group protocol was pilot tested on a one-to-one basis with experts (doctoral committee members), potential participants (teachers at other sites), and nonresearchers in order to test the ease with which questions could be asked and the nature of the answers provided. Finally, the entire focus group plan was reviewed with experts (doctoral committee members) and the participants in focus groups at the close of the focus group session via informal, verbal exit surveys. Examining each aspect of the entire focus group plan from recruitment to implementation helped ensure that the focus group plan was effective, efficient, and practical. Patton (2002) outlined four kinds of triangulation that increase trustworthiness of qualitative analysis: (a) methods triangulation, or using different data collection methods, (b) source triangulation, or checking consistency of different sources, (c) analyst triangulation, or using multiple analysts to review findings, and (d) theory/perspective triangulation, or using multiple perspectives/theories to interpret findings. All four types of triangulation were used in this research project in order to increase the trustworthiness of the findings. First, the use of focus group and follow-up member check interviews with open-ended protocols determined by the content of the focus group, and recruitment and informal exit surveys addressed methods triangulation (See Appendices D & F for the focus group interview protocol and follow up member check interview protocols). Next, multiple departmentalized focus groups and follow-ups provided source triangulation. Finally, the member check follow-up interviews provided analyst triangulation. The purpose of the follow-up interviews was to perform member checks and obtain elaboration that was not possible in the focus groups. 152 One participant from each focus group meeting was selected for a follow-up interview by indicating willingness to participate during the informal verbal exit survey or they were solicited for a follow-up interview by the focus group moderator based on the content of their focus group comments. The follow-up interview protocol was generalized and the focus of the follow-up interviews was dependent upon data generated in the focus group sessions; interviews were audio recorded and the same observation sheets used in the focus group protocol was used (see Appendix G). Member checks honor the voices of participants by checking to see if the conclusions of the researcher are congruent with participant understandings and interpretations of the proceedings (Creswell, 1998; Maxwell, 2005). During the follow-up interviews, preliminary descriptive observations generated by the researcher were discussed and used as springboards for discussion and debate. As suggested by Knodel (1993) a reliability matrix (a matrix with rows and columns representing themes or issues discussed across groups) was co-constructed during follow-up interviews. In addition, observational notes and codes generated were shared during the follow-up interviews to determine if they accurately represented the collective experience and also to help the researcher ascertain whether the interpretations and connections made to the literature review and theoretical frameworks held true in the eyes of the participants. Finally, the use of the analytical considerations outlined by Krueger (1998c) and the symbolic interactionist analytical tools of thick description and thick interpretation provided theory/perspective triangulation. While confidentiality was assured via pseudonymous masking of the school and participant names in all reporting, the compensation of participants for their participation is a contested item. 153 Patton (2002) raised the ethical issue of reciprocity in relation to compensation for interview participation; while the concept of reciprocity is central to qualitative research, questions remain regarding whether compensation affects the quality of participant responses or increases participation rates. Patton noted that this ethical issue is becoming more prominent in Western capitalist societies among economically disadvantaged communities that are overstudied and undervalued by private corporations and increasingly non-profit organizations; it is suggested that alternatives to cash can demonstrate greater reciprocity. Because the participants in this study were teachers, issues ethical issues surrounding reciprocity and lower-income communities were less relevant. Participants in this research were provided with a token monetary and nonmonetary incentive in order to compensate them for their time and their contributions to the focus group discussions. 154 CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION OF FINDINGS Overview of the Chapter This chapter presents the findings of this study in a thematic format. Only comments that were strongly supported by participants and confirmed in follow-up member checks are included here in their entirety. The purpose of this chapter is to insert the voices of urban educators into the dialogue surrounding NCLB implementation as they have been too long neglected. Accordingly, in order to meet the expectations of thick description, focus group comments are often presented in their entirety without excessive narration or editing by the researcher. Essentially, the researcher acts as a scribe presenting the voices of urban teachers as Apple (2008) suggested. The broad overarching themes of educational choice and equity, teacher professionalism and autonomy, and the interests of students and communities, that were identified in the review of the literature are used to organize and present the findings. Finally, messages from participants directly to politicians are presented, the reliability matrix is discussed, and a summary of the chapter is provided. Educational Choice and Equity Urban teachers reported they were very concerned about the negative impact NCLB implementation was having on educational choice and equity. The political nature of NCLB dominated a large portion of the focus group interviews. Teachers often expressed that they felt NCLB implementation was political posturing at the expense of urban schools. In addition, participants discussed accountability and how teacher, administrative, paraprofessional, parent, and student accountability was manifested thus far in NCLB implementation. 155 Political Nature of NCLB Urban educators strongly identified NCLB with President George W. Bush. When asked what they think of when they hear the words NCLB most stated Bush. A Math teacher remarked: Two things come to mind, I think of George Bush and politics and I think that they’re trying to get accountability. I think at one level it’s kind of like a political show but then at a different level I think if implemented correctly it’s supposed to give opportunities to students but to this point I am not sure if all the resources have been given to teachers to provide that for all students. Teachers expressed doubt with the ability of George W. Bush to improve American education. For example, a Physical Education teacher questioned: I will be honest this whole thing is for a bunch of White people in suits who are telling the little dark people what they need to do, and coming from a president that got a ‘C’ average at Yale come on now. What does that guy really know about No Child Left Behind? Urban teachers also expressed disappointment with the political rhetoric and lack of actual support surrounding NCLB implementation. A Social Studies teacher noted: The bad thing is as I listen to our soon to be ex-president Bush because he said that he raised the Standards, well If I’m 6’2” and he says the standard is 6’4”, well he has raised the Standard but how am I going to get there if he hasn’t supplied me with some platform shoes or some even more improbable stiletto heels? Finally, urban teachers expressed that they hoped the effectiveness of NCLB implementation would be examined in the upcoming changes in the presidential and legislative branches. A Science teacher questioned: What are the results? Have they had any data? Has there been any improvement? Has there not been improvement? Have you ever heard anything about that? Because if they’re still having problems you know, is this really working or do they need to revise? 156 Personally, I don’t like it I think they should get rid of it and start over again, but you know it’s been long enough to where if we’re not benefiting and the students are not benefiting then we need to come up with another policy. In a similar vein, a Math teacher questioned the effectiveness of NCLB: I just want to know about NCLB has it worked? And if it hasn’t then we need something else, to end the strangle it is having on every child in every classroom. Well now that Bush is going to be leaving, maybe NCLB can go with him. Yes, he did it for political gain. I’m going to be president and guess what I’m going to hold all these teachers accountable and students are going to do better, they’re going to do great. And his term is over. It’s probably going to be something new now in terms of policy. Ultimately, the hope that changes in presidential leadership would signal significant changes to or preferably a repeal of NCLB was expressed in all the focus group interviews. Perceived Intentions of NCLB Urban teachers reported that they perceived that the intentions of NCLB were to eliminate public education. A Social Studies teacher noted that they believed the goal was to move public schools towards privatization in a similar manner as has been done with the prison system-- “… the idea is to just neglect it so it will collapse on itself and then we’ll see that we need someone else to organize it.” In an animated discussion about the intentions of NCLB, teachers strongly agreed with an English teacher who noted: I really believe that NCLB is designed to make us fail. I think it’s an excuse that they’ve been dying to do this. They’ve been dying to privatize education. They want to get rid of public education and prove with all of their data that we are failing schools. You know they started with their charter programs and vouchers and eventually it will lead to private schools and who’s going to be left out? The poor. And who are the poor? Minorities. And so to me it’s something that we need to fight against and say you know what, no, we’re not giving up on public education. You can call us a failing school but we know we’re not failing so either you design a new program that matches what we’re really doing or we’re going to have to unite and just reform it ourselves. 157 I honestly believe that’s what’s happening right now. They want to get rid of public education. I tell my students they need to take advantage while it’s still free. You know because a lot of their parents they came to this country because, I mean I know my mom she came here because she couldn’t afford to pay for school in Mexico so she had to come here. She had no education and no opportunities so many of my students they are in the same boat they’re working hard here and for them to not understand how important it is for them to at least try to prove the system wrong, to prove that they can no matter what they throw at you that you will overcome that obstacle because it is an obstacle, it is an enemy that you need to face and overcome. I always tell them that. Don’t let this test beat you down; it is an enemy, you attack it, you break it down – I don’t care how boring it is, you do it. You know because it is your bloodline on the line. Teacher sentiments that the failure of urban schools is manufactured are echoed in the findings of Saltman (2007) and Giroux (1998, 2003). Saltman and Giroux proposed that the propagation of school failure is necessary in order to promote the idea of “school choice” whose real aim is to privatize and militarize public schools. Urban teachers reported that they felt NCLB was designed to set schools up for failure by using Orwellian doublespeak regarding achievement. Teachers expressed that they found the doublespeak used by politicians to discuss NCLB to be particularly misleading. A Social Studies teacher explained: It sounds good you know, everyone will learn English and be proficient by this date. But in a way I think the conspiracy is to decrease or downsize government and make these into charter schools to be honest with you. Eventually I think that’s the whole concept to reduce government spending and so forth. And that’s what they want to do in the long run. Because they know there’s no way these schools are going to be proficient in 10 years especially if one subgroup fails then the whole school fails, that’s the problem. I mean Special Ed. By definition is not at grade level so by definition we will always fail if Special Ed. is included in the subgroup requirements. There’s a school in Salt Lake City and they’re all Caucasian and 97% of the school is proficient except 3% and I think the 3% is Special Ed.; but the key is 97% of the school is proficient but because 3% failed it’s considered a failed school by NCLB. That’s ridiculous. 158 Urban teachers also feel that the intention of NCLB implementation was to dismantle public schools and form charter schools or tap into the massive funds made available by taking over public schools. A Math teacher explained: Some people say that’s part of the master plan though to start privatizing public schools and making them into charter schools. It’s propaganda and it’s going to be a sales gimmick for the next politician that comes along to say “See how bad we’re failing? Therefore we need to promote charter schools, let’s take that money.” And education is like a multi-million, no, billion dollar sector and it’s really money driven and it’s all about who can control the money. I mean I don’t want to get deep into it but you have people like Mayor Villaraigosa who’s trying to control 20 schools. I mean he did get his 20 but he wanted more, but guess what he has his own council people, his own committee, and they get to decide how to allocate the funds and if we need to build facilities, guess what you’re my buddy and you own a construction company let’s go ahead and fund you, you get the contract. They get to inspect who they’re buying the materials, the textbooks, and all of that from so it really comes back to the money. The privatization of public schools or restructuring efforts to transform public schools into charter schools is problematic. Teachers view the political maneuvering surrounding NCLB implementation as a direct hindrance to the promotion of school choice and equity despite the language employed that attempts to present NCLB as the harbinger of choice and equity for urban schools. Failure as the Norm Urban educators expressed that they believe NCLB implementation has promoted failure as the norm. One remarked, “…quantifying failure is just another persuasive strategy to try to sway people to adopt a new policy and dismantle public schools.” When asked how it felt to be teaching at a school labeled as failing, a Physical Education teacher remarked: I think at the beginning it was pretty harsh, but then I started looking around and this school is not doing well, that school is not doing well, that school is failing and pretty soon I said, “Hey, that’s the norm!” 159 And it’s sad to think that way. But when you start looking outside of the city into Pasadena or Whittier or Santa Monica it makes you wonder, “Wow, what’s happening? What’s going on in our community?” I know we all want to motivate the kids, you know come on you don’t want to be a burro for the rest of your lives so get motivated, do your homework. I know that I have some circles and family members who I felt kind of embarrassed to tell at first, I was kind of ashamed. But then I saw that so many other schools made the list in our district and so I try to think where does it come from? Is it the teachers? The parents? The administration? The techniques? The environment? What’s going on? Other teachers reported feeling incensed by the persistent label of failure. For example, a Social Studies teacher stated: You know, a part of me is really tempted when I hear that we’re a program improvement or failed school, a part of me is really tempted to tell them to go straight to the devil in so many words. And it’s like I have to just keep reminding myself. I got into teaching for the kids and it’s a job I do for the kids. And frankly equating this program to George Bush, who the heck is he and any of his minions to tell me that I’m a failure? But the fact is their great system and master plan says I am a failure so I recognize that we can get shot behind this, figuratively speaking, professionally shot. The NCLB prescription of various labels of program improvement and consequences outlined specifically for Title I schools is one that has promoted deep resentment among urban educators. Not only do teachers view the targeting of low-income schools for sanctions and negative labels as inequitable, they express that the lack of enforcement of various sanctions has needlessly affected teacher morale in negative ways. Federal Government and District Threats Urban teachers reported that initially the threats from the federal government and District regarding PI status were worrisome but over time have diminished. A Special Education teacher recalled: I think it affected us more 3 or 4 years ago. I think they’ve lost their hammer. I feel that we’ve just been beaten so much with it that now we’re all just limp, the teachers, the students, and the administrators. 160 Honestly, I was hoping the state would carry through on their promise when we hit PI 5, you know how they said they would takeover the school. I really was hoping they would do it because I think the administration is lacking. In fact, two years ago I went around to all of the [Assistant Principals] that were here at that time and I asked them “What is the principal’s plan, his vehicle to improve our test scores and our student achievement?” and they said, “Good question, I don’t know, he hasn’t shared it with us.” I said, “He hasn’t shared it with anyone, yet here he is still.” And luckily he has some people on his team that will do things but he doesn’t really have much of a goal except oh we have to get the scores better. Okay, but how are we going to do that? It’s demoralizing from the whole approach here. I mean we’re supposed to be the kids’ friends but if we want to push the kids to learn and cause confrontation because of that then that’s a bad thing. If they took over the schools like they said they would they would have a big handful themselves. But they won’t take over the schools. They don’t have the manpower to do it. I mean, really, are they going to take out every school? I mean at my other school we were PI 5 for four years straight. What did they do? They got new principals every year and started all over. In reference to the Program Improvement sanctions structure for Title I schools, urban teachers expressed that they feel it contained empty threats. A Special Education teacher noted that it is unfortunate to have so many schools in advanced PI Year 5 status and no thing has happened even though restructuring was promised at year 5; the teacher explained that in their classroom and as a parent, they don’t make promises they can’t keep, “…so when the District and State makes these promises and threats then they need to keep them. I have no problem with accountability but let’s hold everybody accountable, not just me.” In a similar vein, a Math teacher noted: I mean think about it we are program improvement year 6, 7 and nothing is happening to us. I mean some schools are at year 8, 9, a billion, you see it’s just absurd. The whole program improvement thing is almost like a joke now because they can’t support it. I mean before it was a threat, you know we’re going to switch out your administration, and whatever. I mean at this point it’s like whatever, we have schools in year 9 of program improvement. What are you going to do, start closing down schools or something? You’d be closing down like 90% of the District, so at this point the whole failing thing is meaningless. 161 Teachers also expressed that the PI consequences seem to be surface level quick fixes to deeper systematic and pedagogical problems. One teacher noted, “You hear about a bad teacher, let’s get them out, you got a bad principal, let’s get them out. We should be saying how can we help the principal, how can we help the teacher, how can we help?” Lack of Funding In addition to problems with the promotion of failure as a norm, and empty threats from the federal government and district, teachers expressed frustration at the lack of adequate funding to meet NCLB mandates resulting in even deeper inequities between schools. Many teachers expressed that they were disappointed in the levels of funding from the State of California. A Social Studies teacher asked, “Why is it in California, a state that clearly understands the difference between buying a Mercedes and an Aspire or a Yugo, they think they can pay Yugo prices and get a Mercedes education?” Many teachers faulted the federal government with inadequately funding NCLB mandates. For example, a Math teacher noted: I think there’s a lot of rules and regulations but no means of backing it up. It’s almost as if the rules and regulations should be thrown out due to the fact that there is no funding, but it has created this atmosphere of compliance with no means to comply. The problem is there is no resources, not that money does it all but it would really help a lot. Teachers suggested that the lack of funding for NCLB mandates promoted a punitive system of inequity. Numerous teachers also expressed frustration that a national program was instituted without providing States with support. A Special Education teacher noted: I think if you’re going to put up a big giant program like NCLB, then you should damn well fund it. You are asking California to do something and the dollars going into the classroom are not the same dollars that go into a New York classroom. So when you make a big program and say a State has to do it to get your federal funds then give the State money. 162 Similarly, a Social Studies teacher explained that political priorities were backwards: Well that’s the problem with NCLB, they did the Act, made the legislation, but gave the money after, actually they didn’t even give the money after but they planned to. They should have given the money first and the technology at least a year or two to get it rolling and get teachers trained and then implement NCLB. It might have worked a little bit better. I still wouldn’t agree with it but it might have worked a little better if they did that. Many teachers expressed they believed funds were available but being allocated improperly at high levels in the State and District. A Math teacher explained: Also at the same time there are billions of dollars but they’re just not being allocated correctly. I also think teachers should be paid more and that would higher the expectations for teachers. It would be nice for our profession to actually be valued as something that’s good for our Nation instead of just being paid less than prison workers. But you get a lot of brand new Mac computers at this school so there is money, but it’s just not being… I mean technology is good but… it’s just not being allocated as well. Teachers expressed that one financial positive was that the number of block grants available to the school has increased since NCLB implementation. One teacher noted, “there has been a little more block grants and with that we have had more equipment for the kids… some of the projectors and the technology that have come in... so that is a little bit positive.” However, teachers also expressed that there is a preponderance of school site mismanagement of block grant funds. One teacher noted that there is a lack of accountability for administrative management of block grant funds, “I think it’s not fair. They get away with so many things. You know they lose grant money, one time I think we lost something like 200,000 dollars. Were they held accountable for that? No.” Similarly, a Social Studies teacher noted: And we don’t have anybody that knows budget at this school. We had Rodriguez funds, we had 450,000 dollars and the principal was saying “Oh, we have nothing to do with it.” 163 And I was like, “No we have to spend it by June third.” And he said, “Don’t worry about it, it’s okay, we’ll have it the following year.” And I said, “No we’re going to lose it.” And then finally in April he’s like, “Oh yeah, you’re right that money, we’ve got to spend it” so we got all this stuff, the department chairs each got something like 50,000 dollars but what happened was that some of us got the money, some of us got some, but Science department lost 40,000 dollars, never got the microscopes that they needed and stuff like that and they lost out. Who was held accountable for that? And they blame it on Betty, “Oh, Betty passed away” What? Unacceptable. Teachers also expressed that the lack of funding for professional development at UMS promoted inequity. Teachers are often denied opportunities to attend professional conferences or engage in activities that would promote professional growth on par with suburban school colleagues. For example, a Physical Education teacher explained: Financing. Making sure that they give us enough money to implement what we need to do to help our kids. Also I think that if they expect teachers to reach a certain level then there should be some sort of compensation for them to get things like National Board Certification. If they want the teachers to achieve like this and reach these high levels then I think we should be compensated in some way. If there are teachers who want to get certified there should be some way of funding where they say we will get you the 1,000 dollars for that process and you don’t have to take it out of your check. Because it is very expensive, or even to join what they have through UTLA which is another six hundred dollars. I think they should set aside some money for those teachers that do want to achieve to that level because it only helps the school and the students. So, I think money and financing. I think they expect a lot but give us a little. The high cost of PD activities such as National Board Certification creates greater stratification among urban and suburban teaching professionals; many suburban districts offer subsidies for teachers to attain such certifications while most urban districts do not. Accountability for Whom? Urban teachers unanimously expressed that they felt accountability was important and that they had no qualms with being held accountable for student achievement. 164 However, they questioned the inequitable vision of accountability being promoted during NCLB implementation. A Science teacher explained: I think there has been a shift also in terms of accountability. I think the shift has gone from what used to be a parent, teacher, and student relationship, it has now shifted to where there is more teacher based. You know where there is more focus on teacher accountability, and not parents or students. If a student has been “left behind” then it’s the teacher’s fault and not necessarily the parents or the students. Teachers expressed that they felt the accountability rested solely on the teachers thus far in NCLB implementation. A Special Education teacher noted: If you’re going to start a program then you need to start from the top. First you get your highly qualified managers, then you get your highly qualified teachers; instead they are starting at the middle and trying to get to the top. And then once you have everybody highly qualified then you can hold everybody accountable. I have no qualms with being held accountable, but I want my boss to be accountable, I want his boss to be held accountable, I want my aides to be held accountable. And if you can’t do it then figure out what you’re going to do. The sole focus on teacher accountability creates deep divisions and resentment between parents, teachers, and administrators. Instead of working together to promote student achievement, the inequitable distribution of accountability solely for teachers produced by NCLB implementation has resulted in less collaboration, more blaming, and feelings of inequity leading to disengagement and lowered teacher morale. Teacher Accountability The unanimous sentiment among teachers was that they are the sole recipients of the bulk of the accountability efforts. A counselor explained, “It seems like they put a lot of pressure on the teachers when it takes a whole village. Teachers cannot do it alone, the parents and the students need to be held accountable.” Others emphasized that there is an imbalance but that it is important to strive for more equitable accountability. 165 Some teachers noted that the sole burden of accountability is creating a feeling of exhaustion for teachers. A Science teacher noted that they felt as though they were constantly hitting a wall and “…I get up again and I hit the same wall, and I keep on hitting it. I feel like a lot of teachers experience things related to NCLB where there’s this blockade and it’s not allowing me to be successful.” A Physical Education teacher noted that if accountability was more equitably shared schools would begin to work as a team “…and you have the same goal and you hold the parent, the teacher, the administrator, everybody accountable and everybody does their work and beyond that’s a great school.” Teachers also expressed that they felt alone in their accountability efforts with minimal support from school or District structures. A Social Studies teacher explained: I feel like I’m being held accountable. Okay, there’s gotta be a balance between responsibility and authority. I’m being held responsible for something to which I cannot respond. I haven’t got the authority to tell the parents what to do, I haven’t got the authority, really, to tell the kids what to do, I haven’t got the authority to pick what I teach. In effect, I’m responsible for the results, but I haven’t got any authority to really do anything. I’m running a bluff in my classroom. And basically we all know what the sentiments for bluff is in Kansas. It starts with B. Our forty third president’s name supplies four of the letters if that matters. Paraprofessional Accountability Special Education teachers noted that they have been particularly affected by the NCLB requirements for paraprofessionals. One teacher remarked, “Because of NCLB I went for an entire year without an aide in my classroom because they couldn’t find ‘highly qualified’ people whereas previously we had people that were available.” Teachers felt that the 12 unit requirement led to instability among aides. One teacher noted: The fact that they stipulate that all special education aides need to meet the 12 unit minimum doesn’t even justify the fact that they have it in place. 166 There were some aides that had fewer units that were more qualified and adapted to do the skills in the classroom than people with the 12 units and they have to be in an educational program themselves and aspire to be a teacher or else they’re released and the problem is you start to get someone working with you, you get them comfortable with the curriculum and then because they’re going to become a teacher they’re out the door and you need someone new to train all over again. Many teachers felt that NCLB requirements for paraprofessionals took away people who were committed to Special Education but could not meet new testing requirements and did not allow for flexibility in the timeframes for them to attain training. One teacher recalled: The big thing I attribute to NCLB as far as our paraprofessionals go is where we used to have the lifetime people who are very well versed into the role and requirements of their positions. What NCLB has done and is doing is say “Well, if you don’t have the units then you can’t continue anymore” and it’s very hard for people who’ve been out of school for 15 years or 20 years and who are raising their families or have their families raised to go back to school and get the requirements to continue. What it’s done is given us a younger crop of people who don’t necessarily have maturity. I know just getting them to come on time and be reliable is a task. I had one aide who said, “Well, I missed the last three days because I was drinking and I couldn’t just quite make it to school so I stayed home.” All of the teachers questioned whether the new requirements have actually improved paraprofessional quality. One teacher summarized: All of these new requirements for the aides has robbed us. They have taken away from us not helped us. They’ve taken away from us the mommies who we really do need in the classroom. You take away our mommies who we need and replace them with these college-type people but they haven’t checked whether they can write a paragraph or not. So if you’re going to take my mommies away then give me people who can write or who can do the academics. I mean my class is severe and I have aides that can’t write as well as my kids can. But how they have evaluated the aides situation has nothing to do with reality at all. I had one aide that was an aide for 20 years and she couldn’t pass the test because she can’t take tests, but you know what she’s a great mommy, a tough lady, and she was great for my class but all because of NCLB suddenly she had no job. 167 The paraprofessional requirements implemented under NCLB have produced greater inequities for Special Education teachers and students. As a result of the new requirements, teachers and students lost individuals committed to Special Education because they could not pass tests. In addition, some classrooms went without paraprofessional aides for extended periods of time because they were unable to find interested individuals who met the newly implemented requirements. Administrative Accountability Urban teachers felt that there was a lack of meaningful accountability for administrators during NCLB implementation. However, one teacher who was formally an administrator noted that administrators are held accountable and they have to push teachers because they’re also on the chopping block. The former principal remarked, “… they are under high pressure to get those scores to raise. Everything with NCLB is about paper trails, you know you have to notify the parents if the kids are failing, and so on….” In addition, one Physical Education teacher remarked that there is a vicious cycle of blame promoted by NCLB implementation: Accountability I believe is squarely on the administrators. I mean if your test scores are low you are gone. That is where the accountability is right now and we need to all take a shared role regardless of what we are teaching, P.E., Music, I think we all need to take a role and I know it’s hard but we all need to start to be better. I don’t believe that after a few years they should tell administrators “Well you’re not doing what you need to do so we’re gonna move you to another school.” I mean it takes time like you said. You cannot expect in 3 years when you’re coming in to change the mindset of people. I think there is no shared responsibility right now. The District is looking at the administrators, the administrators are looking at the teachers and the teachers are looking at the kids and complaining that the parents aren’t involved. I don’t think there is any communication of shared expectations and goals. 168 The cycle of blame promoted by NCLB implementation has negatively affected the spirit of collaboration in urban schools and lessened opportunities for shared leadership among teachers and administrators. A teacher that recently obtained their administrative credential remarked that in their training they were taught that schools are partnerships, “That’s what you learn. Now it seems like in LAUSD that when you’re working as an administrator, the principles go out the window and you’re just working in survival mode… [to meet policies and mandates] and you lose a sense of community in that.” Similarly, a Social Studies teacher reflected about the divide between administrators and teachers produced by NCLB implementation: The administration. I think there is a lot of pressure on them from the District coming down to them and then they place all that pressure on teachers. And that’s a negative situation. They try to rush programs because they have to but there is no discussion of it and then they put pressure on us. If we put pressure on the students like that they would complain. If we taught them without actually preparing them, scaffolding, following through, modeling, guiding, individual practice, checking for understanding… but when they do it to us it seems to be okay. Ultimately, NCLB implementation has resulted in less democratic governance of schools as administrators rush faculty members to implement programs without discussion because the changes are “mandated” by the district or federal government. Highly qualified administrators. There was a strong feeling among teachers that urban schools are in desperate need of highly qualified administrators. Teachers expressed dismay with the lack of stability in administrative leadership at the school. A Science teacher remarked: I’ve been here for eight years and we’ve been through how many principals? Seven including the substitutes I think we’ve probably gone through nine principals in that time. 169 But we don’t have stability at our school and good leadership. Because we have a principal now but I don’t think he’s a very good leader and I feel like it’s just setting us up. This sentiment was echoed by another teacher who stated that they felt that UMS teachers had all of the pressure, “I mean look, we’ve got [this principal] who goes and plays the guitar. I mean this is a PI 6+ school and he’s here playing the guitar, I mean loud. I mean they are jamming up there in the South Building.” Teachers also expressed that administrators at UMS seem to lack the pedagogical foundations to be instructional leaders. A Social Studies teacher asserted that the problem was not unique to UMS but was a systemic flaw, “At one point in the late 90’s the statistics for administrators in LAUSD was that 50% of them had either been in P.E,, Art, or Music, like 50% of them have no idea about an academic classroom.” This sentiment was echoed heavily in the Special Education focus group interview. A Special Education teacher remarked: It all looks good on paper, but not only qualified teachers, let’s get qualified administrators too that have something or know something about Special Ed., not just who go into your room and say, “Oh it’s nice, the kids are sitting down and quiet,” and walk out. They should be able to know what is an IEP [Individual Education Plan] and how to write an IEP just in case you’re a new teacher that comes in they can help you out, set you in the right direction instead of just kicking you in the butt and saying here go do this and that and you’re on your own. I see all of this about teachers, but we need highly qualified administrators too, especially in the Special Ed. field; the majority of them don’t know what they’re talking about and don’t care to. They’re just there to check up on you, and make sure the kids’ behaviors stay in your classroom. In all focus group interviews, teachers emphasized the lack of appropriate training to become an urban administrator. Teachers expressed disappointment that many administrators had spent limited time in the classroom before fleeing into management positions. Many teachers expressed that urban schools need principals who are instructional leaders – who can effectively demonstrate and model instruction. 170 A Math teacher explained the importance of instructional leadership among urban administrators: Another thing is that principals at a school are supposed to be like “the” leader when it comes to the school and I think that they should make sure that principals themselves understand pedagogy and can actually go through these hoops too, you know they need to be highly qualified as a teacher themselves, they have to know it so they can actually model it; you know so they can actually show it instead of just tell it. So I definitely think that principals have to be highly qualified in terms of teaching because how can you be an instructional leader for the school if you are not? Many teachers expressed that they felt that the current qualification requirements for urban administrators were too lax and inadequate to meet the numerous challenges facing urban schools. A Social Studies teacher summarized: Honestly, I think administrators, they’re not highly qualified to be honest with you. Here is my belief, here is my philosophy. It’s that in order to become an administrator, be Title I Coordinator for at least two years, you have to do department chairperson, be a teacher at least for 10 years, and work, if you’re going to be an administrator in middle school then you damn sure should have been a teacher at a middle school. If you’re going to be an principal at an elementary school, you should have been teaching at elementary level for at least 10 years. And I think what’s going on here is administrators have come from the elementary where kids are nice and awesome and quiet, and the schools are small and they get to here and they’re just blown away and they just don’t know what to do. And they think they can work that model from here to there. I don’t understand why there isn’t a BTSA-like program for administrators especially in some of our most challenging schools. I think for teachers it’s you go get your history degree for 4 years, the teaching credential for 2 years, and then the BTSA program for another two years. But for an administrator, it’s just one year and then boom you’re done. It’s like then somehow you are qualified to be an administrator. I think what is needed more is people skills and a lot of people are coming into administration that are young and they don’t have any teaching skills or people skills. It’s almost like throwing a captain or lieutenant into the front lines and they think they know the things but they have no clue what is going on because the sergeant is the one that controls it really. And I’ll leave it at that. 171 The suggestion that individuals have a minimum of 10 years of experience teaching before becoming a K-12 administrator is compelling. Not only would such an experiential requirement give greater credence to the instructional grounding of administrators, it may also result in greater teacher respect for the evaluative process which many teachers report seems arbitrary and capricious under current designs. Teachers also expressed dismay that in LAUSD there seemed to be no evaluative process in place to monitor principals at schools that were labeled as failing. One teacher remarked, “Just like they’re supposed to check on teachers and get down their backs, well you know what I think they need an administrator supervisor or something to get them all on track.” Parent Accountability Teachers expressed disappointment that NCLB provisions failed to adequately address parent accountability. A Science teacher remarked, “I think the focus on NCLB was mainly on teachers and out accountability and neglecting the whole triangulation of what makes a successful student which is the parent, the teacher, and the student.” Similarly, a Math teacher remarked, “I can’t think of any evidence for parent accountability and they’re a key variable in the equation when it comes to student success… when it comes to parent accountability that is a definite area of needed growth for NCLB.” Teachers noted that when they do attempt to hold parents accountable it is the teacher who ends up in trouble when parents complain to the administration that they are being “bothered” by the teacher. For example, a Math teacher reflected: I came from a private school, where in a private school it’s a little different because the parents are paying their money. It’s like I pay money for my son to go to private school too so you better believe I want to see the homework packets. 172 I want to see the syllabus- because they are here for their education. It was a shock for me to come here though, and I know I am younger but I had never heard of in middle school a child failing three classes, never does homework, always late… and I wondered well what do the parents do? And I still don’t know how to address it. I know that I try my best, especially now to have communication with the parents. I know that teachers who I team with struggle with this too. For example, there is a teacher that pretty much makes the parents accountable, she makes them accountable because she continues to call the home and continually has them in for conferences and I understand. To me, sometimes it’s kind of like I can’t waste my time calling and doing this and that because I have so many other things to do but I know that the students she’s contacting, their parents, it’s the same students that I have problems with also in my class. Probably not to the same degree as this teacher but it’s like she gets punished for making parents accountable and it’s funny because the parents are upset about it and it’s not really changing the child’s behavior. And so it’s kind of like even though she is trying to make them accountable, they’re not really accountable so in the end you have to ask yourself is it worth it? The lack of systematized parent accountability creates an inequitable stigma for teachers who actually attempt to increase public school parent accountability. Without effective administrative support for such efforts, teachers who attempt to hold parents accountable when the system provides no means to do so are chastised instead of supported. Teachers also noted that the new culmination requirements are also placing pressure on the counselors to attempt to hold parents accountable without any real accountability consequences if they choose to be uninvolved. A counselor noted: The Individual Culmination Plans are something new and our goal is to meet with all of our students within the year and go over their grades, their test scores, we talk about high school requirements, we talk about getting into college. The difficult part is getting parents to come in. Last year during back to school night we would schedule about 15 Individual Culmination plans, and if we were lucky 5 showed up. We let the parents know it’s very important to come and sit with your son or daughter to go over this individual culmination plan but the first time they hear individual culmination plan they say what in the world is that? But then you explain it. Even still the turn-out of parents is very low and they know the child will go on to the next grade anyhow whether they complete it or not. 173 So, one parent doesn’t show up and you go on to the next student, the likelihood of you going back to that student that didn’t show when you have so many students is low, they might fall through the cracks because you need to move on. So that’s the hard part. I think there is pressure on counselors too to be accountable because you’re kind of like the middle child too. Teachers expect you to perform well as a counselor, administrators expect you to perform well, and the parents expect you to perform too because by the time they come to you they are thinking “I don’t know what to do with my kid anymore, he doesn’t listen to me, he’s out of control.” So it’s hard for you to make them understand that me talking to them 15 minutes even every day is not going to fix it. This didn’t happen overnight. This happened over years that your child was out of control. So there is a lot of pressure on counselors. The pressure on counselors to raise student achievement has become intensified as a result of NCLB implementation. New graduation requirements implemented as a result of NCLB have placed greater pressure on counselors to become more accountable for student achievement. However, inequities in work load and discipline duties complicate the abilities of counselors to effectively individualize graduation plans. Parent understanding of NCLB. Teachers expressed that they were not sure if parents understood the implications of NCLB implementation or if they would value them even if they did. A Physical Education teacher remarked: I’m not sure if parents even understand what NCLB means. Yes, some parents do. But I think there’s some communities that do not understand what NCLB means for the school, or for the students, or for the teachers. I think in this community, the parents believe we can change the students to be a more positive person. I think that is their expectation of us that if they can’t change their kids, we can change them for the time that we have them. I think that to many of them that is more important than whether or not our API scores are high or whether or not we are in the fifth year of a needs improvement school. I think the parents believe if we can change the students’ attitude so that they’re not only a better person here but at home I think that is more important to them than academics. 174 If their kids get a C they’re happy, a D they’re happy because they’re passing but I don’t think they really understand the concept of NCLB and I don’t think that they would really care about it as long as they see their student is getting good grades, as long as they have good citizenship, as long as they see that teachers care about them and making sure they succeed I think that is more important. Valenzuela (1999) outlined the importance of teacher caring in the Latino concept of educación which supersedes mere achievement of good grades or standardized test scores; in fact, because to standardize means to strip away variation, a “standardized system of schooling by definition omits individuality [and]… has no structure that values caring or fosters respect [because] if it were informed by or infused with the cultural values of the children and their families…” it would defy the definition of a standardized system (McNeil, 2005, p. 103). Valenzuela explained that for Mexican families: Educación is a conceptually broader term than its English language cognate. It refers to the family’s role of inculcating in children a sense of moral, social, and personal responsibility and serves as a foundation of all other learning. Though inclusive of formal academic training, educación additionally refers to competence in the social world, wherein one respects the dignity and individuality of others. (p. 23) Essentially, the mandates of NCLB are secondary, or even irrelevant goals in comparison to the larger cultural valuing of learning deeply embedded in Latino culture and values. In addition to the absence of cultural congruency embedded in NCLB, the lack of meaningful information provided to parents related to NCLB remains a problem in urban schools. Teachers expressed that they wished they could better inform parents about the disparities among schools and what NCLB is attempting to do. A Science teacher remarked: Here’s the deal, I don’t know if the parents or the students even know what a non-failing school looks like since most of the schools in our local district are labeled failing. 175 I have always wanted to take parents to a more affluent area and say, “Look, this is a seventh grade student and look what they’re doing.” I feel that many parents don’t know what’s out there and it’s frustrating. I mean kids complain to their parents, “Oh we have to read a book.” I mean when I was in seventh grade I had to read 7 novels. Or they complain they have to write a two paragraph response to something they read and that is not even on par with what I was doing in seventh grade. I don’t think they understand that if you want to get into a good school, that is competitive with the rest of the world you’re going to need to step up to the plate and I don’t think the parents realize how, and this is going to sound derogatory and I don’t mean for it to, but how deficient in skills and abilities. And it’s not because they aren’t intellectually capable, the brain is the brain and it can function no matter what, but it’s just that they are not up there with the competition. There is a strong need to educate parents about the disparities between urban and suburban student achievement. Because of the large percentage of failing urban schools, parents are only exposed to one model of schools -- they lack a fulcrum of comparison. Parent involvement. Teachers expressed that in addition to lack of parent understanding about NCLB, the lack of parent involvement made NCLB implementation particularly challenging. One teacher remarked, “…if you go to other countries, parent involvement is really strong. I kind of feel there is something going on in the United States where parents are just disengaged with the educational process.” This sentiment was echoed throughout all of the focus group interviews. For example, a Science teacher noted the differences between parent involvement between newcomers and Americanized Mexican families: You know going back to the problem of parent involvement, if you get a… well, I don’t know how it is now, but I know how it was when I was forced into teaching level 1’s [ESL level 1’s are students who are new immigrants to the country], a lot of the kids who came from Mexico they were pretty good students who had a strong concept of the subject matter and even with the language barrier, that was not a problem, their parents were very involved. Whereas, it’s like in the Americanized Mexican families, not everybody, but it’s like in certain pockets where it’s just like there is this distance between the school and the home. 176 Many of those parents have an attitude like, “Here’s my child, you educate them and you discipline them, you make sure they like learning” and that’s what we have now in the attitude from many of the Americanized Mexican families, not all parents are like that but it seems from the majority now that is and even in members of my own family it is that way so it is across cultures, it is an American attitude. And the problem is that we as teachers do have a responsibility, but the family factor or accountability factor is missing. And what I want to know is how is NCLB going to help that? Other teachers echoed cultural differences in levels of parent involvement that they observed in their classrooms. These issues were often a point of contention among the teachers. They expressed that newcomers to the country were often more engaged in the learning process than their peers who had been in the country for some time. For example, a Social Studies teacher shared: It’s almost a tricky issue I think some of my best kids were ESL 1s and 2s because they came straight from Mexico and they were set and ready to go because the parents have already instilled in them you know the idea of we came from there to here and they are the hardest workers. For example, last year in one of my classes, my ESL 1s and 2s the ones that recently came from Mexico, awesome, they were up in the front. They want to learn, they started writing, they learned PowerPoint, they were learning to write English a lot better than my 2as or 2bs. And it’s because my 2as and 2bs we’re stuck in ESL, first of all they were born here and they’ve been stuck in ESL 2a. Callahan, Wilkinson, Muller, and Frisco (2009) found that in schools like UMS with more immigrant students, ESL placement results in higher levels of performance (while the effect is reversed for students in schools with few immigrant students); essentially, the authors hypothesized that “the fact that immigrants compose a sizeable proportion of the student body in high-immigrant-concentration ESL schools may also position them in the academic mainstream rather than in the margins” (p. 375). However, there are differences in the educational and occupational achievement levels among disadvantaged children of immigrants. 177 Portes and Fernández-Kelly (2008) found that economically disadvantaged second generation children of Mexican immigrants experience segmented assimilation, or in essence downward assimilation and noted that “…even after controlling for subsequent school variables, such as grades and educational expectations… Mexican American youth continue to have a net 30 percent greater chance of downward assimilation…” in comparison to other economically disadvantaged students of color (p. 21). This reality of segmented assimilation is also confirmed in the findings of Perlmann (2005) who outlined the alarming levels of low educational achievement and high school drop out rates of second generation Mexican students. While some teachers credited the inequitable ESL program design with the lack of student engagement, most cited that it was lack of parental involvement that led to decreased levels of student achievement. The changing cultural demographics were also noted as a barrier to parental involvement by a counselor who attended UMS as a middle school student, who expressed: I love East L.A. I grew up here too. But I definitely think the kids right now, I went to this school and graduated in 1994 and my parents were your traditional, old school Mexican parents, so the minute you got a phone call from the school or the teacher you were done. Gangs were not an issue because you would tell parents the kid’s wearing baggy jeans, or she’s doing inappropriate things and they would straighten the kid right out. But now kids are coming from parents who are gangsters themselves so how can I tell you that your reality is wrong when you go home and you live it everyday. Many teachers expressed that they felt the lack of parent involvement was not so culturally bound. Instead, they feel that it is just something that occurs at the middle school level due to parent discomfort with the academic rigor of middle school. However familial support is essential to middle school student adjustment and stress management. 178 Eccles et al. (1993) found that student feelings of depression, low self esteem, and decreased motivation for school all increase during the adjustment period between elementary and middle school as the learning environment of middle school and expectations for achievement are significantly more complex than elementary school. Wenz-Gross, Siperstein, Untch, and Widaman (1997) found that familial support was important in moderating feelings of depression as well as successfully navigating the higher academic stress accompanying the transition to middle school; students with less familial support reported lower academic self-concept levels. A Special Education teacher explained differing levels of parental engagement they have observed at the elementary and middle school levels: At the elementary school levels in this community, the back-to-school and conference attendance levels are usually over 90% but then you get to middle school and there is a huge drop-off. I was explaining to my wife because she didn’t understand that it’s because the curriculum is so different that the parents aren’t as capable to help so they distance themselves, they don’t supervise and make sure the kids are doing the work because they don’t know if the kid is fooling them or not. Let me give you an example, my aunt is new from Mexico, and her son was in high school and he got 3 F’s in class. My aunt said to him, “The report cards came and let’s look at your grades.” And he told her, “Oh the F stands for fantastic here.” So they went to a party and someone happened to ask her, “Oh, so how is your son doing in his new school?” And she said, “Great, he’s got three F’s, he’s doing fantastic!” And everyone kept their mouth shut, but finally someone pulled her aside and said, “No, F stands for failure, not fantastic” And so that is unfortunate but with some of our parents the kids can trick them too. I have kids who say, “I don’t know the teacher didn’t assign us homework” and the parents just believe them. So you never know. Too often, parents in the UMS community rely on their children for translation of school communications and are provided with misinformation. Parental reliance on children for translation produces familial stress for pre-adolescents and adolescent students. 179 There is a strong need for schools to develop increased language supports for immigrant families so that parents do not need to rely so strongly on their children for language brokering, or translation both for student achievement as well as general well being of the student. In a study of 73 recently immigrated Latino families with middle school adolescents, Martinez, McClure, and Eddy (2009) found that: Families in which children were bilingual with two monolingual Spanishspeaking parents reported more parental depression and stress, and less paternal monitoring, schoolwork monitoring, homework engagement, and positive involvement as well as less maternal skill encouragement than families in which children were bilingual but also had at least one bilingual parent. Similarly, adolescents in high brokering contexts evidenced more negative adjustment in terms of parent report of their homework quality, school performance in language arts, internalizing behavior, and adolescent report of future substance use likelihood than those in low brokering contexts. Adolescents in high brokering context accounted for the majority of cases in which a middle school adolescent in the sample ever used any substance. (p. 90) The language barrier may explain some of the lack of parent involvement but it does not account for the totality of parental disengagement with the educational process. Many teachers expressed that they would just like for parents to do their part in helping to raise student achievement. For example, an English teacher explained: There are parents that don’t care at all, then there are parents that care about every tiny thing, and then the ones that are just in between. And then it’s not like I can make the parents sit down and make their child do the homework. I mean some of them are working two jobs, some of them work only at night. And I understand that. I mean I am not going to tell them, “You’re not doing your job.” But then there are parents that don’t work at all and they ask me, “Well why is my child failing?” I ask them, “Well do you see the agenda where they list their homework, they have to get it signed by you every night.” And the parents say, “You mean they have homework?” I reply, “Every Monday they know for the whole week what they are going to do, why do you not look at it? Have you wondered why your child doesn’t ever sit down to do homework?” And they say “Yes, but they tell me they don’t have it.” And I’m like, “And you just sit there and believe them?” 180 I mean 5 weeks have passed by and shouldn’t you as the parent be like, “I notice you haven’t done anything for the past 5 weeks, what is going on?” They just believe whatever the child says and so there is no accountability for the parent. Then they say they were not notified. Well let me pull out the first copy of the letter I sent you, let me pull out the grade sheet, let me pull out the report card where I put the comment parent conference requested please call the main office. And then the parent says, “Oh those were notifications?” What else did you want me to do? Show up at your house? You know they just want everything done for them but don’t want to do what is their part which is making sure that their child is doing their work. There is a strong need for urban parents to begin to make time to address academic achievement. While teachers understand that urban parents may work multiple jobs to survive, the over reliance on student reporting of achievement is problematic. If parents take the time to be involved with their child’s education increased equity will result. Finally, many teachers noted with dismay the disparities between parent involvement at regular public schools and charter schools. Teachers noted that charter school parents were far more involved than traditional public school parents. A Social Studies teacher explained the differences between charter school parent involvement processes and public school parent involvement: The presidential candidates in the debates were talking about charter schools and vouchers and one of the things they forgot is that none of these students who go to charter schools or used vouchers are without parent involvement. And if you take the kids that you have in your classes now and divide them into two groups, little to no parental involvement and heavy parental involvement the heavy parent involvement people are always getting a C or better. I have a friend who teaches a gifted/magnet sixth grade class and his kids are always doing all of these really super things and he says, “Why aren’t you doing all of these things?” Well, I’ve got 10% that would love it. I’ve got 70% that would be uncertain of what they’re doing and I’ve got the other percentage that would be destroying what the other 10% are doing because any magnet, any charter school, any voucher school any situation where the parents had to make a choice and the kids are involved. It doesn’t matter why they made the choice to want them out…but the parents are looking at what they are doing. 181 And here even some of my kids who would be intelligent enough for a highly gifted magnet would freak out at the thought of even trying because they don’t want to work that hard, their parents aren’t pushing them. I mean we’ve been having parent conferences like every second or third day since the first grading period of kids in the honors program because they’re just not. They may have all of the potential in the world but if they don’t have any push from someone other than us they will not succeed. The fact that charter schools have increased parental involvement and can enforce it by design creates inequities among schools. In public schools, teachers have no means to enforce parent involvement. However, in charter schools, parents who are not involved or do not meet parent volunteerism requirements for example may face dismissal. Skills for parents raising pre-adolescents. Urban teachers expressed that parents want assistance with skills for raising preadolescents. A math teacher explained: Something comes to mind that a way to make parents more accountable would just be to help them be a better parent, to help their child be more successful. You know, to offer them a parenting course that is free, this is how to be a parent, like how to be a parent 101, these are the simple things you can do, homework schedule, supervision, time management, anything, little tips. I know as teachers it sounds a little remedial but something as simple as that can really make a difference. Parent skills courses may help urban parents to begin to interact with the school culture in more positive manners. If parents perceive that the school is actually collaborating with them to help them address the daily challenges they face in raising pre-adolescents, they may begin to develop greater understanding and support for the achievement goals imposed on them by the school. Many teachers noted that the priorities of parents in the community seem vastly different from what NCLB promotes. Too often it seems that parents are more concerned with being a friend to their child as opposed to actually raising them. 182 An English teacher recounted being surprised to discover that students often stayed out late with their parents attending parties that include drugs and alcohol: It bugs me. I talked to a kid the other day, he’s late and he tells me, “I’m tired. I went to a flyer party last night.” I ask him “Oh, did you sneak out?” and he says “No my mom took me.” I say, “Really, because if I went out on a weeknight I’d come to school the next day with a black eye or I wouldn’t come to school at all the next day because my parents would have scared me into hiding in my room all day or something like that.” But that just kills me. But then again that’s insensitive of me because I have my perception of what parents are supposed to do and how they’re supposed to be involved and that’s a bit of a culture shock for my students between me and them. In addition to differing priorities, many teachers expressed that parents presented familial challenges that exceed their scope of reference. An English teacher noted: Another problem is some of the parents are coming to me with questions that frankly I don’t have the answer for. I’m 10-13 years older than your kids and you’re asking me as a parent, “Oh what should I do?” I mean do I look like I have a teenage kid at home? Then I feel uncomfortable. I start to think about that then I start to doubt myself and I say wait a minute… If you don’t know what to do and this is your kid then I don’t feel so bad about myself all of a sudden but I don’t think I’m ever going to make any headway if you don’t know what to do either. And I feel that it’s unprofessional in a way to tell them, “You know what, this is what you need to do with your kids.” I just feel like I can’t really say that and have it be fair because I don’t know what goes on in that home. This confusion with providing parental advice on how to raise pre-adolescents was echoed throughout all focus group interviews. Even a veteran Math teacher noted: I remember my first year I was like 21 or 22 and there were parents in front of me asking me how to raise their 13 year old, and I was like they’re almost the same age as me, I don’t know how to raise your kid! But at the same time I do because I’m like you can’t buy them a video game when they fail, you cannot. You take away that TV until they raise it up to at least a “C”. Why are you buying them new Jordans when they just failed my math test? No. It’s basic negative and positive reinforcement at work, I mean it seems so basic. But especially in certain communities where it seems like maybe their parents were not around so they didn’t learn the parenting skills from their parents and so it’s just getting passed down to the new generation. 183 They misconstrue the whole concept of value, instead of teaching them the attitude is, “Well I never had this or that when I was a kid so I want to make sure my child has everything” Instead of instilling the value of wait a minute you have to earn things in life. Did you earn it? No. Well then you don’t get anything. Providing material goods as some sort of a compensation for parental absence in the child’s life is a common error in American parenting style. All too often, it seems parents mistakenly believe that giving a child something material as opposed to presence and involvement is the way to successfully parent. Limited research has focused on Latino families and adolescent or pre-adolescent parent-child relationships. However, a few studies have found that generally, positive parenting practices such as higher levels of social and academic monitoring, communicativeness, familial connectedness, and parental support are associated with lower levels of adolescent delinquent or risky behaviors (Gorman-Smith, Tolan, Zelli, & Huesmann, 1996; Kerr, Beck, Shattuck, Kattar, & Uriburi, 2003; Vélez-Pastrana, González-Rodríguez, & Borges-Hernández, 2005). In addition, Davalos, Chavez, and Guardiola (2005) found that Mexican adolescents who perceived less openness in familial communication were more likely to engage in delinquent behavior (see also Coombs, Paulson, & Richardson, 1991; Smith & Krohn, 1995 for discussions of the importance of positive Latino parental involvement and its relation to substance use or delinquent behaviors). Urban schools will benefit from greater collaboration with social workers, and counseling-based community organizations that are qualified to provide familial support services for raising pre-adolescents. Perhaps reform efforts would be better served by infusing effective counseling services for troubled students that are sure to positively impact student achievement and overall well being. 184 Student Accountability Efforts to raise student achievement that neglect student accountability promote inequitable, nearly impossible methods of improving student achievement. Teachers expressed that NCLB implementation has caused them to notice the lack of student accountability at the middle school level. A counselor noted: I feel like what they’re trying to do is leave no children behind and that’s good but there is no accountability. I mean, we’re accountable but the students, how are they getting prepared to be accountable for their education? I can see that they want to help the kids and make the standards higher but they’re not really giving you any meat to push it forward. I think [what needs to improve is accountability], the student accountability. I think it’s the parents too but the student basically is the key. Like I tell parents, we can do whatever to help a child but if the student doesn’t take part in it then we’re just trying to reach you and you’re going your own way, so you are the key in your education. There’s really no consequences here in the middle school. The lack of student and parent accountability during NCLB implementation has resulted in a system of institutionalized inequity whereby the only group held accountable for student achievement is teachers. Teachers suggested that students needed to become more aware of the consequences of failure under NCLB. A Physical Education teacher noted, “I think if you look at the data you can see that scores drop in middle school… I think we need to expect more from them and they will expect more from themselves.” Many teachers expressed a need to develop a system to hold students at middle schools accountable. One teacher noted that students who are failing should be required to attend Saturday School, “…and the teacher [should not be] the one who has to chase them down [to ensure attendance]. I think we have a lot of people who are not in the classroom at our school that could help with this but it doesn’t get done.” 185 Similarly, an English teacher noted the importance of raising student awareness about the importance of increasing academic achievement: I am always amazed when I look at this school’s daily attendance percentage. It’s always like 96-99%; that means 96-99% of kids in this school don’t mind showing up everyday even though supposedly it’s failing. I mean we can’t guarantee what everybody’s getting once they’re here but 9 times out of 10 if it’s here and in a classroom it’s probably better than nothing. And I think my thing about the failing is we don’t frame it to our kids the way we should. I mean we’re talking about rah, rah, let’s make them do good on this test, the administrators tell us to try these strategies, but nobody says to our kids, “Hey, did you know people look at this and say oh [that school] over in East L.A., they’re failing five times over.” We never seem to give that to our kids to maybe like harness that disappointment or outrage that they could feel, sort of like “Oh I will prove you wrong” sentiment. I don’t think we do enough to tell our kids this is what it means. This is what people are going to be saying about you and your family and people who go to this school and that’s why we want to change it. I don’t think we involve the kids enough in what this means and why it matters to them. Increasing student accountability will result in more equitable systems of accountability instead of the teacher-centered accountability systems currently emphasized by NCLB implementation. Social promotion. Urban middle school teachers noted that social promotion significantly problematizes any effort towards increasing student accountability. A Special Education teacher questioned what accountability exists to ensure that the students are going to do their work and excel. In essence, “There is none. If they don’t learn what they are supposed to learn, if they don’t reach a certain level on their CSTs or just on their yearly grades, what happens? What happens is we promote them.” A Math teacher recalled: Okay, for this one of my students came up to me and said “Miss I failed all your classes and I didn’t even go to summer school and now I’m in seventh grade!” What does that teach? 186 They don’t really fail, they get moved to the next grade and really it’s just a joke on these kids when they go to apply for college and they’re going to have no skills. They won’t have anything to back it up even though, yeah, they made it through twelfth grade but there is like nothing to back it up. So, accountability, specifically LAUSD’s lack of it in respect to failing kids and holding them back, is ridiculous. It’s absolutely silly and it’s teaching the kids nothing about personal responsibility and accountability. It let’s them know that they can get away with doing nothing and failing and they still get rewarded by moving to the next grade. Unfortunately, students move from middle schools where there are no consequences and social promotion reigns supreme, to high school where there are very real consequences. The lack of consequences at the middle school level to hold students accountable was a concern expressed throughout all of the focus groups. A counselor explained how excessive test emphasis and new graduation requirements are resulting in increased student disengagement and dropouts: I think the testing is too much and the CAHSEE [California High School Exit Exam] is why a lot of kids are dropping out. Since I’ve been here it seems a lot of the kids have already given up on school. They feel like there is not hope, there’s no way to regain what they never learned and they’re going to high school anyways with straight Fs. So, it’s just going to continue until they decide it’s not worth going to school anymore if it’s going to keep going on like this. In high school if you don’t get so many credits, you don’t pass, but in middle school you pass anyways no matter what your grades are. So, in high school reality sets in and kids say, “I’m not going to be a tenth grader for two years or three years, I’m out of here.” Student retentions related to the CAHSEE are increasing dropout rates. Goldschmidt and Wang (1999) found that students who are retained are significantly more likely to drop out of school. In addition, high school exit exams have resulted in increased student retention rates which has also increased the dropout rate (Amrein & Berliner, 2003; Haney, 2000; Jacob, 2001; McNeil, 2000). It is also noteworthy that Latino immigrant youth are seven times more likely to be dropouts than their peers (USDE, 2002c). 187 Similarly, another counselor explained how the lack of middle school promotion requirements breeds low student achievement: That is the problem. Why are we passing a child if he’s failing all his classes? Because really they can fail all of their years here in middle school and we keep sending them on to high school. So I think parents were used to in Mexico where they fail and you must repeat the year, so here they say why don’t you guys keep them another year? But they get passed on, and they get to high school where the stakes are so high. In high school one F and you have to repeat the course. Your freshman year you could be finished with the first year but you’re still a freshman, you have to go back and take that class again. So, they left from no expectations and oh it doesn’t matter in middle school to high school where it matters. The need to implement middle school student accountability requirements in order to have an effective, equitable accountability system was highlighted in all focus group meetings. The political nature of NCLB implementation has resulted in deep seated resentment among teachers due to the inequitable distribution of accountability requirements; teachers believe that the current focus is solely on teacher accountability and that there is a lack of concern with parent, administrative, and student accountability. Teachers believe that the intention of the law was not to promote public school choice, but to dismantle public schools through privatization and the promotion of charter schools. The deficiencies contained in the law related to funding and the presumably unanticipated negative social effects of promoting failure as the norm and terrorizing urban schools with empty federal and state threats has lead to several considerations concerning teacher professionalism and autonomy. 188 Teacher Professionalism and Autonomy Urban educators expressed that NCLB implementation has denigrated teacher professionalism and autonomy. In the focus group interviews, teachers discussed the status of education, the prestige of teaching as a profession, urban teacher preparation, the BTSA program, and competing definitions of highly qualified teacher. In addition, teachers highlighted the effects NCLB implementation has had on teacher instructional autonomy, the standards, district pacing plans and periodic assessments, and finally the narrowing of curriculum and need to reassert goals larger than the standardized tests was discussed. The Status of Education Urban teachers expressed that they believe the public, particularly those in urban communities, remain uninformed about NCLB and that furthermore education seems to remain a low priority for citizens and policymakers. A Math teacher shared that the lowering of the public opinion of teaching as a profession resulting from NCLB implementation has been particularly difficult: People say, “Oh, I’m so sorry for you” and I get that all the time. So it’s not necessarily that it’s a failing school, just public school in general, just the way that public school teachers are portrayed as non-caring. I take offense to those kids of things because I know I am a caring teacher. My first year especially I went home concerned day and night and almost cried half of those nights because of frustration, but I came back because I cared. So, just to hear that attitude that people have towards teachers and the non-appreciation, that kind of makes me angry not the fact that I am at a school labeled as failing. The lowered status of teaching as a profession is evidenced in public responses to teachers and the media portrayal of teachers as non-caring. 189 In addition, the lack of non-biased information about NCLB has compounded public understanding about the law. A Social Studies teacher shared her experience with informing people about NCLB: A lot of the people don’t actually know about NCLB. They’re not actually aware of the system, the process, and everything. Before the last election I had a cousin summonsed out to the Marines and visiting and we were out to dinner and they were all talking about whether to vote for Bush or not and I said well all I know is any teacher who votes for Bush is not voting in their interest. And I had to explain to an entire group of people what NCLB was doing to me and to my students and they were like “And he put that in place?” I said, “Yes, and if he wins this election when he leaves the next time it will go up to 36% improvement” and they went, “That’s impossible!” and I said it’s nice to hear it from somebody else but nobody knew about it. Nobody knows about the program. They hear the bad things and what I really wig out about is whenever you hear about this school that’s improved, four times out of five it will be an elementary school, the fifth time it will be a high school, and the twenty-fifth time it will be a middle school and when you look at that middle school, they have less than 1,000 kids. The lack of meaningful information about NCLB implementation or the skewing of information presented to the public regarding NCLB remains a problem. The reporting of school “successes” during NCLB implementation remains flawed as larger urban middle and high schools are often not included in success stories, essentially because there are limited, if any successes to report in those arenas. In addition to lacking information about NCLB, teachers felt that parent distrust of teachers has risen since NCLB implementation resulting in a lessening of teacher professionalism and autonomy. Teachers expressed that parents who already held reservations about public schools have only been emboldened by NCLB. 190 A Math teacher shared that parent-teacher relationships have been strained by NCLB implementation: I think it’s getting progressively negative. I mean even with my family members it’s like before when I first decided I wanted to go into the teaching profession they said why would you want to do that? That’s easy. That’s not a career, you can pass a test and become a teacher. And that’s what it was initially. And then after all the NCLB implementation, even though I don’t feel like the school, like everyone around me is labeled as failing but overall it’s like public schools all over, and so you teacher are not teaching those kids what they are supposed to know and so you’re just as useless as the kids are and basically that’s how I feel. And the tragic thing is many of us are here because we really care. I just feel like as teachers we’re underappreciated and NCLB is making it worse. And we have politicians that come on TV and say “Our kids are failing! The teachers are failing our kids!” and I wonder how can you have one of the jobs that takes the most out of you physically, emotionally, it’s draining but at the same time it’s rewarding, one of the most rewarding jobs. And you have such a big responsibility because you basically have lives that are entrusted to you that you will pay a probation officer more is the attitude “I would never want to be a teacher, they don’t get paid enough, not for what you guys deal with. I feel sorry for you even being a teacher” I get that all the time. And the politicians are the ones putting it out there, because of NCLB we’ve come to the conclusion that these schools are failing so these teachers are not doing their job. These teachers are not qualified. The illusion that teachers are not qualified to meet the aims of their profession has been an important piece in the movement to deprofessionalize teachers and reduce instructional autonomy. In addition, Ingersoll (2003) outlined how conflicting perspectives about levels of teacher control have energized most educational reform efforts of the twentieth century. Prestige of Teaching Urban teachers expressed that the prestige of teaching has been even further damaged by NCLB implementation resulting in increased parental and administrative distrust of teachers as professionals. 191 Several teachers strongly agreed with the comment of one teacher who noted the declining prestige of teaching as a profession: I just think our whole Nation’s perspective of Education obviously is not that high. I mean even in this current election, none of them even spoke about Education in the debates. I mean I understand economy is huge right now but if you’re not educating your future work force, then what is the point? I mean our scores in America, they peak at fourth grade and the last 12 years they have been going down and we’ve been dropping in the world ranking of education. It’s not a priority for us, we got on top and now it’s not a priority. Many teachers expressed that they felt the social dialogue surrounding NCLB implementation has degraded all teachers, not just bad teachers. For example, a Math teacher noted how statements made by politicians influence the prestige of teaching: Politicians do talk about that students are the future of our country and that’s very true. And in any profession out there teachers played a key role in getting them to that profession, whether it be doctors, engineers, even plumbers. And there has to be more credit and prestige given back to the teacher, something to increase the morale because right now it is very low due to NCLB. And in terms of NCLB it could be good for the teacher whose a deadbeat, the one who reads the newspaper instead of teach students, but I think the majority of teachers are decent teachers just for the fact that they’re in the profession. I think a lot of NCLB is not effective when it comes to increasing teacher professional growth. Finally, another Math teacher expressed a concern that was vocalized in every focus group interview that equitable pay will restore the prestige of teaching in America: Let’s talk about putting a priority on education. I would start with teachers. We are in between administration, the home, the students. I think they need to pay teachers more and it’s not about the money, but restoring a prestige and value to teachers I think would change a lot of the perceptions. Equitable pay and increased instructional autonomy will help restore teacher professionalism to pre-NCLB levels. In addition, reconstructing media dialogue about teaching to be more positive will help the restore the prestige of teaching as a profession. 192 Teacher Commitment to Urban Public Education Even with the many challenges and lack of public support, urban teachers reported that NCLB attacks on public education have only made their commitment to serving communities in need stronger. Teachers strongly agreed with their colleague who stated: Sometimes I question if I have done it long enough but when stuff like NCLB comes I feel like it’s an attack on my people. And so when that happens that’s number one for me. Whatever I do, even with writing, it’s for my people, it’s for my culture, it’s to represent, it’s to leave a mark. And so I feel like I am never going to leave because they keep attacking my people. And this is like the frontline because it’s our kids, they are attacking our kids! And if I am not there then I feel like who is going to be there? Who is going to replace someone like me? I don’t know anybody who thinks like me, you know. If I could replace myself I would be like okay, take my classroom and I can leave and start writing and whatever. But, I haven’t met that person to replace myself so until I do I am going to keep fighting legislation like this. It angers me, how dare they! Many teachers view NCLB as an attack on urban teachers, schools, and communities. They do not view this legislation as a benign helping hand to achieve increased educational equity. While the language of NCLB speaks of increasing access and equity its implementation has resulted in exactly the opposite. For some teachers, their personal experiences with inequity inspired them to be committed to teaching in urban schools. For example, an English teacher explained how their life experiences and NCLB implementation has only increased the personal commitment to increasing social justice through education: I had experiences where I went to school, I was a minority of course and I grew up in Central California and most of the kids were farm owner’s children, and rich people, people with education and then there was myself and the other minority children. So then I thought to myself I need to teach because I did not have very many teachers that I could identify with or that understood where I was coming from. So, I think I just kind of needed a chance. 193 It was in high school when people pushed me through to college so I wanted to be the teacher that was there for the students, the students that may not know anybody in college or they know someone but they don’t know how to get there or maybe don’t have the skills. That’s why I came here and not back home to where I grew up because those kids they need minority teachers too but like I said I started here and now I’m kind of stuck. It’s really hard to leave with classes full of minority students, the majority Latino, many of them probably poor and that’s who I want to help. I want to get them into colleges, get them into classrooms, get them into the courts, get them into the professions that are going to continue to help the same community. Finally, a Math teacher summarized how their personal commitment to urban education has only been strengthened by NCLB dialogues concerning the achievement gap: And now it’s more of this driving social justice cause. I mean I am still teaching them character traits but there is this huge drive – you need to have an education and education is what’s going to give you opportunities, it’s going to break cycles of poverty, it gives you an even playing field, an opportunity to go to college and even compete with some of the other students around the Nation and also I was thinking in the back of my head of becoming a principal of my own school and now I don’t have the effect of my just 30 or 60 kids that I get every year which is awesome but maybe having a school where things are run properly or things are more accountable and things like that and then you have the influence of a greater amount of kids because there’s a huge need right now and it needs to be changed and I’m just driven to influence and change as many things as physically possible. So it wasn’t NCLB but the achievement gap that energized me, the achievement gap that NCLB highlighted but hasn’t even nearly fixed it, in fact it has worsened it. Contrary to perspectives promoted by popular media outlets, teacher commitment to urban education has only been strengthened by NCLB implementation. While teacher morale has been negatively impacted by the punitive structures of NCLB sanctions, the commitment to increased professionalism and instructional autonomy is stronger than ever. 194 Urban Teacher Preparation Urban teachers expressed that the purging of teachers on long term emergency credentials was one positive aspect of NCLB implementation. A Science teacher noted, “The thing I found positive about NCLB was or is the idea that now you have to have that credential, you must have specific subject matter competency. Whereas before you could be a P.E. teacher and teach Science or English.” Similarly, a Math teacher stated, “I would say for me that is the most positive thing from NCLB that every teacher that is in the classroom is where they belong.” Many teachers expressed that before NCLB many teachers would have emergency credentials but lacked the needed commitment to the profession. A teacher noted to strong agreement, “so in that sense, forcing us to complete a program and show that we are committed to it is kind of good.” However, that is where praises of NCLB implementation in regard to urban teacher preparation ended. Teachers had strong criticisms of current urban teacher preparation programs, the BTSA program, and professional development during NCLB implementation. NCLB implementation has resulted in a host of new teacher preparation requirements in order to meet the “highly qualified teacher” provisions. In the State of California, there was significant restructuring of teacher assessments including a new testing requirement, the California Subject Examinations for Teachers [CSET]. A Math teacher noted that when new teacher testing requirements were implemented by the State of California in order to comply with NCLB, resources and supports were not provided: Another thing is that I know to become a teacher they added more testing and now you have to take the CSET, there was no study guides or anything at first and I know many teachers for a couple of years were just guinea pigs, they were pilot testing and there was no support for teachers and that was because of NCLB. 195 I thought that was wrong because they were putting more stipulations on teachers but yet there was no support, there was no resources provided for them so I thought that was definitely wrong. For any policy that is implemented they should already have resources available as tools for teachers to actually meet that end. The State of California has not provided resources for teachers to cope with NCLB mandates and policy changes implemented as a result of this legislation. To implement new testing requirements but not provide teachers with the necessary supports to meet the requirements indicates that the goal of such efforts was not to improve instructional quality but instead to produce more evidence that teachers were not qualified to conduct their duties. In addition to increased pre-service testing requirements that have proven to be ineffective at increasing teacher professionalism, many teachers blasted programs that purport to train teachers to serve in urban schools as promoting a lack of commitment to prolonged service. An English teacher explained that the limited teaching requirements of urban teacher programs promote service times that increase teaching instability in urban schools: And you see that just burns me because I worked in one of those schools that was so heavily targeted by Teach for America, and Oakland Teaching Fellows and it’s like, “Hey white people come save the darkies and you can leave in two years.” I’m not kidding that’s pretty much what they said. The attitude is serve your time for two years and you can leave and hopefully we’ll replace you with another expendable. And I just hate that. I try so hard not to look at those colleagues and feel that they are doing this missionary mindset and then they’re going to leave. Then I think to myself, “God, do they think that about me?” I mean I ended up here by accident but I’m not leaving. So my perception has changed probably because of the programs that say, “Oh yay, let’s get highly qualified teachers in schools without worrying about real commitment or anything like that.” That has kind of lowered my own perception of teacher training programs. 196 Programs like Teach for America that view teaching in America’s urban public schools as a finite community service act have been widely critiqued (Darling-Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, & Shulman, 2005; Laczko-Kerr & Berliner, 2002; Lipka, 2007). Similarly, Veltri (2008) noted: Questions persist as to whether [Teach for America] falls short in prioritizing the preparation of its corps to teach for urban America by limiting their experiences in schools to a 5-week team-teaching clinical practice at [Teach for America’s] training sites. “Doing service” for a finite commitment is not “doing school” and certainly not equipping corps members to be teaching school effectively during their rookie year. (p. 533) Ultimately, programs like this impact the daily lives of urban teachers and do not adequately prepare them for prolonged service; this connects to teacher professionalism which decreases urban teacher stability which in turn affects student achievement and stymies sustainable efforts to close the achievement gap (the stated paramount goal of NCLB). In addition to inadequate urban teacher preparation programs, teachers expressed that programs like the LAUSD District Intern program inadequately prepare urban teachers to meet the challenges of urban schools. An English teacher recounted her experience: You know how the kids can tell if we’re faking it, you know if you’re having an off day or something. Do they think we don’t notice that too from them? I mean every single Monday in the District Intern Program was, “Okay we’re talking about best teaching practices today.” And what are they doing? Having us sit and watch a video for 45 minutes. In that instance, teachers seem to make poor teachers. I mean they need to work on that first. The credentialing programs need to be strong and rigorous to really prepare teachers. They need to be less theoretical. I mean I understand that we need to learn educational theory and understand pedagogy but at the same time 45 hours of observation is not going to be enough; eight weeks of student teaching is not enough because not everybody does student teaching. My colleague and I we were put into classrooms and we had never even stepped foot into a classroom even as student teachers. 197 The LAUSD District Intern program fails to increase teacher professionalism because its curricula does not adequately address practical experience or teacher mentoring. In addition it does not engage teachers in the critical pedagogy necessary for culturally relevant instruction. Notwithstanding local program inadequacies, teachers also reported that California requirements for student teaching were not adequate enough to prepare teachers for teaching in urban schools. A Social Studies teacher explained the importance of student teaching: Everything I learned was in student teaching, everything I have learned is right now. I can see myself becoming a better teacher every week just by experience in the classroom. And the way the teacher preparatory stuff is done it’s separate from the classroom. I mean, yes they make us fulfill observation hours—we do tons and tons of observation hours and stuff like that but there is only so much you can observe. What’s frustrating too is the master teachers they get for your student teaching; I didn’t know anybody that got a good teacher because a truly good teacher does not want a student teacher in the way so you end up getting somebody that wants a student teacher. And that means somebody who really wants a T.A. and so sometimes you end up having 10 weeks of making copies, or taking attendance and it’s frustrating. And you also cannot voice your opinion much because this is the person that’s going to evaluate you so you say “Sure, I’ll make the copies and run the errands.” Teachers learn by doing and practical experience in the classroom. Extending the requirements for classroom observations and student teaching in urban schools will increase teacher professionalism and result in increased teacher instructional and pedagogical strengths prior to beginning service. BTSA Program Teachers regularly criticized California’s BTSA program as being “a waste of time,” “completely redundant,” and “a complete repeat of teacher credentialing programs” implemented as a result of NCLB. 198 A Social Studies teacher remarked to strong agreements, “I think new teachers should spend time in the classroom with a coach or somebody there to help them along. I think that would be more beneficial than putting all that money into BTSA.” A Math teacher explained the redundancy of the BTSA program: BTSA is really like downshifting. For example, if you teach a child a unit, they understood the concept, and if they learned it then it’s retaught to them, you already know it so you get bored, you get turned off, you shut down. I mean obviously if you didn’t learn it the first time then it’s good for you to go and learn it again but I definitely understand what you’re saying. It was just redundant and it was a true waste of my time. I think for them they were saying there is “more accountability” and “more training” therefore teachers are more qualified now and they’re better but it really wasn’t. It was actually contrary because it took so much more of your time when that time could have been spent designing your curriculum, refining it, and so forth to better meet student needs and to enrich the whole learning experience. Essentially, many teacher credentialing programs were drastically restructured to meet NCLB implementation requirements for highly qualified teachers. However, longstanding programs such as California’s BTSA program were not modified to meet the demands of the changing times. Many teachers who had just completed credentialing programs when the highly qualified teacher components of NCLB began to be implemented were required to complete BTSA. An English teacher recalled that this caused her and others to reconsider teaching as a profession: Well right when I finished my credential program was when the whole NCLB thing came up. And I remember there were many of us who were just finishing up and we said, “Wow, what else are we going to have to do?” We just did two years of this teacher credentialing program and a lot of us had to go back and do additional programs or fulfill additional requirements and some people thought about it and said “Well is it worth it I mean I am just starting, is it worth my time?” And after my first year at 199 [another school] that is exactly what happened. We lost a lot of teachers in all departments, English, Science, History. And those positions were not even filled. A lot of them didn’t even have long term, they just had day to day subs and that is still the case at that school in South Central. You have a lot of day to day subs. When I left last year, my position was unfilled and it still is, there is a long term sub there. People did not want to do all of that extra work because of NCLB so they just left the District or went into other professions instead of being hassled and now the kids are left behind with subs. Forcing teachers to complete redundant training programs results in greater disenchantment with teaching as a viable profession. A Math teacher caught in the transitional BTSA group recalled their frustration with being forced to complete the BTSA program in order to comply with NCLB: Things NCLB mandated especially for teacher credentialing programs, I think it really is outstanding because I think without that I don’t know if I would have made it after my first year. But it didn’t prepare me for everything, it didn’t prepare me to actually deal with what I saw my first year, or second year, or even now but it gave me something to fall back on. On the other hand I think the program I had, the BTSA program... I mean it’s like, some of it works and you understand the goal and no one mandated program, policy, or whatever is going to fit all of our needs but for my BTSA is just like jumping through hoops. It was like the same thing I did in the credentialing program and I think I was one of those teachers that were like right in the middle group during the transition so I had to end up doing all that other stuff. So it’s kind of like I did do my credentialing program and “Are you serious? You are going to make me do it again?” I understand that highly qualified and NCLB is one of the reasons that they made a lot of changes in the credentialing program I was already in at that time but it was kind of like with BTSA I was doing it all over again, the same exact things without any variation even. And maybe that works for some teachers but for me it’s like, I did my credential, I got a lot out of it when I did it. So maybe for some teachers it is very helpful, especially their second year but for me it took a lot of time out. Similarly, a Social Studies teacher reflected about the usefulness of BTSA to meet highly qualified teaching requirements contained in NCLB: To me it’s a left over from when we had people on emergency credential. Then we could make sure they all had a standard approach, and they could evaluate them, and follow-through how they organized a day, a week, and 200 a unit but now they’re not hiring people that way and everybody has to have their Master’s in teaching before they get hired… So BTSA has not stepped up with the new requirements. At one point the highly qualified teacher also had to be participating in the school via department chair, councils, or something. And I can understand why they put that in at that time and I can also understand why they took it out. And that’s because not everybody can be department chair, there’s only so many departments in the school. And even if you rotated around every month you still don’t get everybody. So the big problem is they are going with the things they can measure. So, you went through the process, you filled out the form, you got the classes, you took the BTSA, you did on and on and they can measure that. But you can do all of that and more and still not be highly qualified. You can step straight off the boat, so to speak, and be better than anybody in this room if you have that natural gift. But they don’t know how to measure natural gift and neither do I. But there are times when I wish I could. So they’re handicapped by the fact that it’s hard to measure an intangible and they want to show that they’re measuring, they want to show that they’re going for something but that does not cut out the bad apples and sometimes it can even cut out the good. Teachers feel that efforts to increase teacher professionalism such as requiring credentialed teachers to complete redundant programs have only led to committed people fleeing the profession. Even teachers who had just begun the BTSA program at the time of this study found it to contain needlessly redundant information from their teaching credential programs. For instance, a Social Studies teacher shared: Yes, I just started BTSA. I just did the orientation. So far it’s just been completely redundant. And it’s the same stuff that I just got through doing in the teacher credentialing program. It’s the same stuff over again, the same strategies, the same superficial stuff and for the most part all of it was just a complete waste of time. And all the people there have the same attitude; nobody wants to be there. So you have a big group of people who nobody wants to be there and you’re presenting them with information that they’re already familiar with. It’s not really productive. The quality of urban teacher preparation programs deserves closer monitoring. Redundant teacher training programs with irrelevant curricula deprofessionalize teaching. 201 Urban teacher preparation programs should seek to teach new skills and emphasize the connections between theory and praxis. Teachers will benefit from increased opportunities to observe teaching in action and increased opportunities for student teaching will enhance the profession. Professional Development In addition to substandard teacher preparation programs, teachers were disappointed with the quality of PD offered to teachers during NCLB implementation. For example, an English teacher noted, we “…need common guidelines but I think the problem is in the credential programs and the PD at school. We really don’t have time to sit down and plan together to make common units, common concepts, or common standards.” A Social Studies teacher noted the common problem of lack of PD consistency and continuity: The big problem with all of the constant trainings we have here to make us better teachers because we are program improvement is the lack of consistent follow-up. If any one of the things we’ve done had been followed through we could have made more progress by now than we did. But they bring something in, introduce it, don’t tell us about it in the Spring so we can plan for it in the Fall. But instead, they give it to us, tell us they will come in and evaluate us on it and then they kind of forget about it 9 months later and come up with something else. And so the people who are resistant never come on board, the kids are never consistently taught from class to class or year to year, so they can’t really make progress. Finally, a Math teacher noted the great need to provide differentiated PD at the middle school level: But it can be frustrating. Take our professional developments for example. With a lot of that busy paperwork we have to do, I mean we have so much that we have to do already just to give our kids a good education and differentiating for them and going back and doing tutoring sessions and intervention on our own and then we have to do things that don’t apply to us or extra busy work or extra paper work. 202 And you don’t even have time for that. It’s like you are just being distracted and pulled away from your main job with all this paperwork and stuff that has to be done which is frustrating sometimes. Or the PDs that don’t really address the needs of the teacher as a growing professional, that can be the frustrating part especially at a failing school where they’re trying to implement tons of programs, and that means even more paperwork and busywork and you can’t focus on the core issue which is creating meaningful lessons directly at your kids’ levels. PD for teachers needs to be rigorous, well planned, and meaningful. Currently, in many urban schools, the PD is inadequate and consists of “busy work” for teachers as well as administrators. PD in urban schools deserves closer monitoring and should be connected with the goal of increasing student achievement by strengthening the diversity of pedagogical and instructional approaches that go beyond analyzing test score data and preparing them to teach test preparation units. Competing Definitions of Highly Qualified Teacher The highly qualified teacher component of NCLB resulted in some of the most contentious conversations among teachers in the focus group interviews. Teachers discussed out of field teaching, NCLB compliance letters sent home, and teacher quality during NCLB implementation. Teachers expressed that highly qualified teacher component of NCLB lacked authority because States were permitted to produce their own definitions of highly qualified teachers. A Science teacher explained: I just feel angry because you know they put teachers in these positions where they can then point at them and say, “You’re not highly qualified” and I feel like for a lot of things, not just that teachers are the ones who are doing the groundwork and the grunt work to pull themselves or to defend themselves… And that’s the problem with NCLB and this idea of “highly qualified teacher” the law does not clearly define it. They leave it to the states to make up their own definitions and so state by state it’s different. The highly qualified label has been used as an administrative and popular opinion weapon against teachers instead of as an enhancer to improving teacher professionalism. 203 Many teachers felt that the perception of teachers in low-income schools was that they were less qualified than their peers in more affluent schools. An English teacher noted: The perception is that if you are teaching in a low income school then you must not be proficient in your profession and you’re not highly qualified. I feel like that does a disservice to our low income schools and the teachers who are really dedicated to working hard here. Those who are willing to take that time and space out of our lives to worry about the plethora of things that go on here whether it be academic or social. Even the way it affects us emotionally, because we do take our work home with us as much as my husband hates that I do. But, I feel like the opinion of teachers who work in a low-income area is really low and teachers who work in affluent areas even like South Pasadena, but the assumption is they are good teachers because of where they are. In addition to the highly qualified teacher designation not improving teacher professionalism, teachers debated whether mere qualifications or experience makes one a highly qualified teacher. A novice English teacher shared their experience with the highly qualified label: I’m very embarrassed to say that when I first started here I was dubbed highly qualified but I had never set foot in a classroom. But, I got that label so there was no letter sent home for me. For eight hours a day for six weeks I listened to people talk to me over the summer about being a teacher and then boom I’m highly qualified and then I am standing in front a classroom full of kids; I had never seen so many Mexican kids in my life but there I was. I didn’t know anything about East L.A.; I mean all I knew was okay this is about 40 minutes from my house, that’s fine but there I was supposedly highly qualified. Not only that but I am an English teacher and I am embarrassed to admit I have not taken English since high school. It does not take much to be highly qualified unfortunately. That the lack of experience and mere possession of degrees and paperwork designates one as a highly qualified teacher under NCLB constructs problematizes efforts to increase teacher professionalism. Teachers shared that merely possessing degrees does not make one a highly qualified urban educator. They expressed that being a teacher involved more than just possessing subject matter knowledge. 204 An English teacher explained how effective teaching involves more than subject matter competency: So, for people to say because you have this piece of paper or x amount of credits you are highly qualified to me that means nothing. There are a lot of people who are highly educated who have PhDs or Master’s degrees and they are idiots who can’t deal with people, they can’t control a classroom, they’re social morons and so to me it means nothing. I think there needs to be a holistic approach to the evaluation of teachers you know classroom observations and the like which is something the administration refuses to do because it takes up their time. That cultural knowledge should be included as part of the evaluation process of effective teaching practices was emphasized by The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (2008) who suggested significant revision of the highly qualified teacher components of NCLB to include student and cultural awareness. Similarly, a Social Studies teacher remarked: You can have all the degrees in the world and still not be highly qualified. I mean some of you remember Dr. [name deleted]. Dr.[name deleted], my god. I mean picture a target. I mean, the man had targets pinned to every part of his anatomy and they were used by the students. So, he would have been highly qualified by NCLB definition because he had a PhD; I was even admonished one time because I corrected him. But we all see that all of his knowledge didn’t get the kids to respect, sit down, or even show up to class with him. While subject matter competency is an important component of teacher professionalism, NCLB provisions designate it as the sole requirement of effective teaching. However, others note that there are cultural dimensions of effective teaching (Anyon, 2005, EakerRich & Van Galen, 1996; Finn, 1999; Freire, 1998; Valenzuela, 1999). In addition, Gay (2000) suggested that there are several barriers to culturally responsive teaching including the impetus to maintain cultural hegemony and discomfort among educators with mastering such approaches. 205 Out of Field Teaching While NCLB eliminated emergency credentials, many teachers expressed frustration that out of field teaching remains a problem even under NCLB implementation; teachers are misplaced due to administrative decisions and then labeled not highly qualified to teach the subject matter. Administrative decisions to inappropriately place teachers only serve to further deprofessionalize teachers and contribute to the waning public opinions of teaching. Furthermore, Ingersoll (2003) noted “… out-of-field teaching is not the result of a lack of adequately trained teachers but is, rather, rooted in the way teachers are used and managed once on the job” (p. 241). An English teacher expressed their frustration with the continued problem of out-of-field teaching: I am just remembering how they make mistakes in assignments and it is our fault. Wait a minute! The problem is administrators don’t take accountability, they want a body to be in that room and it was either misplace a teacher or get a sub. So they place you there and then play a game with you like, “Oh I didn’t look at your credential” or “I didn’t know you weren’t qualified to teach that subject” and so it’s kind of like you should have known if you were doing your job. I mean I can look up my own credential why can’t you? It’s all in that same database. You type in my name and all my credentials come up. It’s just like they are paid to do that job and they just don’t do it. In addition to administrative decisions to inappropriately place teachers damaging teacher self-image, teachers expressed that administrative misplacement of teachers damaged their relationship with parents. A Science teacher recalled: That is a problem. The problem being teachers get hired and they’re told they will be teaching a specific subject matter and then the administration misplaces them. So, let’s say they say, “Oh, you’re going to be teaching in seventh grade math’ well, later they put them in sixth grade math, so they misplace them and so that sets them up for failure and to top it off they send those letters out. For me, when they sent those letters out it wasn’t fair because I had already acquired my credential. 206 And they pulled a “Oops, we didn’t know that” on me. While it didn’t affect my teaching that year I was very upset with the misinformation because it negatively affected my relationship with parents. Parents were saying things like “I don’t want my child in her classroom because she’s not highly qualified” and I don’t even know if they even know what highly qualified means themselves but I had to sit there and actually defend myself and provide a copy of my credential to parents, write a letter to the parents, write down my first name and last name, my maiden name, show my driver’s license with my maiden name and my name now because it was under my maiden name and that was it. I even was asked by an administrator who was in charge of NCLB to leave my classroom right away because I was not highly qualified in front of students and I was. I just had to make it clear that my credential was under my maiden name. So, it’s those things, those blurbs that discourage people from teaching. Teacher professionalism and self-perception is directly affected by administrative decisions and for that reason such decisions deserve greater Union oversight. Contracts should address the problem of out-of-field teaching in order to protect teachers from capricious administrative decisions that are later used to label teachers are inefficient. NCLB Compliance Letters Sent Home Teachers expressed that in addition to the continuing problem of out of field teaching, they feel the NCLB compliance letters sent home to inform parents that their child was in a class taught by a teacher that was not highly qualified were demeaning to teachers. In many cases, letters were sent home in error and teachers were offered no recourse; the damage to the parent-teacher relationship was irreparable. A History teacher shared an experience they knew of regarding those letters: I remember specifically one teacher a couple of years ago who was here who got that NCLB teacher letter sent home to her students’ parents and it brought her to tears. She felt firstly that she was qualified. Well she was qualified by the state and by the district. Something was in error. There was an error in her profile or whatever on the computer and they sent out a letter to all the parents that she was not qualified. And then the next day the kids came laughing and it was tragic because she was having a tough year. 207 And all the kids were laughing “see that’s why you’re not a good teacher” because of this and that and because you’re not qualified. And that even made her more sad. And this was particularly bad because in this case like others at that time they sent the letters home without informing the teacher. So if the teacher knew the week before this was going out it would have been different. But if you learn about it because your kids come in and rag on you, that’s not professional from the district at all. And the administration claimed they didn’t know about it and they probably didn’t know it just came straight from the district. In addition, many teachers reported that parents did not know what the letters meant because the wording was confusing and incomprehensible which ended up causing needless confusion. A Math teacher shared their experience in this regard: This is a recent experience of mine. When I hear that highly qualified that kind of makes me upset too. Because I remember two weeks ago. I went to school, got my credential from the State of California for elementary, but then I got a supplementary authorization. The whole time I was going to school they were saying, “You know if you take these Math classes then you’ll have an authorization to teach up to tenth grade in high school.” And then when I went and applied for my credential it said I had a supplementary authorization not an authorization but that allowed me to teach middle school. That let’s me know I am qualified to teach my position. But then for a letter to be sent out because of NCLB notifying the parents. I mean, it’s like, with me being a parent if my child’s teacher tried to explain a note that was sent home by the school about that teacher I don’t want to really hear what the teacher says because I see this paper that clearly states they are not qualified. And so for me it’s like I have the credential to prove it I am qualified but then a letter like this goes home with my students. That right there tells me something is not working and it seems like different solutions to fix the same problem are not working so we’re going to implement more that might not work either but the teachers are guinea pigs, the kids are guinea pigs, and it all seems just very experimental and the teachers as well as the children are the ones suffering because of it. So the letter went home a few weeks ago and I know the parents didn’t read it because the child was saying “Miss how come you sent a letter home?” They just saw a letter with my name on it and they thought that I sent it maybe their behavior and it wasn’t understandable. A lot of kids who told me that they got the letter said the parents didn’t even understand what it was about and why it was being sent home. 208 And me trying to explain it, “I’m qualified but the letter is saying I am not qualified, but don’t worry I have my credential and you’re in good hands.” And that’s how I felt! How am I going to explain that letter when I have the credential to prove that I am qualified to do the job that I am doing or I wouldn’t have been hired because of NCLB. It was demeaning to try to explain to the kids that somebody in the government doesn’t think I am qualified to teach them but I am. NCLB compliance letters have served as a source of anxiety for teachers. Greater union involvement in protecting teachers from letters sent home in error will increase positive relationships between urban administrators, teachers, and parents. In addition, ensuring that the letters are comprehensible to parents and contain accurate information will help ensure that the public is better informed about the status of teachers in urban schools while encouraging increased teacher professionalism. Teacher Quality and NCLB Implementation Teachers expressed great ambivalence about whether NCLB implementation has resulted in improved teacher quality in urban schools. An English teacher expressed that they appreciated the increased emphasis on accountability: There is some good in it in that it forces the teachers to be accountable. There was no accountability before and no structure so although it’s severely flawed, we do need a system where teachers know if what they’re teaching is effective. Maybe not all that testing but different ways of doing that. So I like the accountability part because I thought I was doing a good job but when I felt forced to look at the scores and I knew what I needed to go back and reteach, even though it doesn’t give us the time to do that and it’s not practical, it does give us information that we can use to reteach and push a kid forward. Maybe that student will never go beyond, or won’t be a NASA scientist or something, but improving 50 points proves that a student can move up. Even if they don’t go beyond that level, just knowing that as a teacher makes me happy because I feel that there is hope for every child. And yes, not every child is going to make it to an Ivy League or UC or whatever but there is a lot of stuff we can do as teachers and do to be accountable to somebody, even to ourselves. And this makes us think about that more so I like that part. 209 Other teachers expressed that there needed to be significant changes in the hiring practices for urban teachers in order to garner improved teaching quality. One teacher noted that, “…with LAUSD the hiring is almost a joke, all you need is a pulse. Like with me I took the test, I had a pulse, and I was hired.” Similarly, a math teacher noted: I think it’s very ambiguous because technically what it meant for me and a group of my friends is that you did checkmark, checkmark, checkmark and – I actually did the Teach for America program and I fully support it and I appreciate Teach for America and that movement that’s going on but you’re taking college grads, some of them who have never done anything involving Education, you put them through a summer institute, and not to say that you don’t learn things but you’re taking people who are motivated and have passion which means a lot but technically when I went to interview, it was the case that you could memorize your answer and at some of the public schools all you had to answer is: what would be your discipline plan and how would you deal with a disruptive child? When I had three friends who applied for charter schools and they had to teach a sample lesson, they had to analyze test data and see how they would develop a remediation plan, not only answer that but answer these questions about their pedagogy. So their interview process was sort of like a sifting through to see if they were qualified. Whereas I, not to demean myself or anything, I memorized the answers to the questions and I got a job. It doesn’t mean I am a terrible teacher, I have the passion motive, but check, check, check and I got a job whereas at certain schools they watch you teach, you have to really be interviewed. Ultimately, teachers expressed that current teacher training and hiring practices are inadequate to meet the rigorous demands of NCLB provisions. While teachers in charter schools are hired after an extensive vetting process, the hiring process for teachers in public schools remains minimal at best further contributing to the lax public expectations of urban public school teachers. Urban districts can begin institute more comprehensive hiring practices involving a review of classroom discipline plans and actual observations of prospective teachers conducting model lessons. 210 Teacher Instructional Autonomy Teachers outlined the negative effects NCLB implementation has had on teacher instructional autonomy. One counselor new to the profession recalled: I was in school when NCLB first happened, I was in college and I had a lot of teacher friends who were affected by it and I saw them doing more cultural things and things that were involving thinking outside the box but after NCLB a lot of them got burned out because they felt their creativity was taken away and their ability to do things outside of the curriculum was stolen. Essentially, the overemphasis on test preparation has stifled the efforts of core subject teachers to implement culturally relevant and student-centered teaching in urban schools. Because teachers and schools have been blindsided with “raising achievement” by improving standardized test scores, a rich history of pedagogical innovations has been halted in its tracks. Teachers do not have time to discuss student interests or cultural connections because these items are not tested. A Physical Education teacher expressed that thankfully, the autonomy of P.E. teachers has not been so affected by NCLB implementation because there are no standardized tests as of yet for Physical Education classes. However, they empathized that they observe that many of their colleagues suffer from decreased instructional autonomy and creativity because they are told what to teach. A Physical Education teacher noted: In the beginning you’re all motivated and you have all of these different strategies you want to implement and bring to the kids but then there are a lot of other things that come in that you are needed to teach. You need to do this so that takes away one thing you wanted to do. Then another thing comes up and your pie that you had of all these creative things to teach is slowly getting smaller, the slices get smaller because they’re filled with all the things you are required to do and teach. So, in some ways you are not really teaching in your style or your voice because your pieces are smaller. 211 In providing advice to new teachers entering the profession during NCLB implementation teachers continually the need to reclaim teacher instructional autonomy. An English teacher advised: If it’s boring to you then it’s probably going to bore the kids to death. If Open Court, High Point, any of those programs, or the District Instructional Guides kind of bore you then they’re going to bore the kids. So, you do have to bring in still as much as you can, things like personal experiences and cultural experiences the kids can relate to in order to make it matter or the students just are not going to succeed. So, it isn’t just getting your hands on the District Instructional materials or teacher’s guides. You still need to think, you still need to create activities that are meaningful for the students with clear goals of course and objectives, but it still needs to be relevant to the students and it needs to matter. Decreased teacher instructional autonomy has resulted in teacher and student disengagement with the learning. Students are not motivated to learn test preparation curriculum and teachers are not motivated to teach it. Teachers desperately need to reclaim instructional autonomy for the sake of students and teaching professionalism. Narrowing of Curriculum Teachers expressed that NCLB implementation has resulted in significant narrowing of curriculum at middle schools. Teachers noted that implementation has marginalized subjects that are not English and Math, negatively affected electives and alternative skills programs, and increased pressure to teach to the test. Physical Education teachers reported that while they were marginalized before NCLB this has only increased since implementation. A Physical Education teacher noted: The sad thing about it is every book you pick up will tell you that exercise is what helps individuals learn, become disciplined, and become a better student. Every single journal out there will say that exercise is one of the most important aspects of human life. It helps get more oxygen to your brain. But P.E. is always put aside. We are kind of like a dumping ground. 212 You know we have 65 kids in one class and people say, “So what, it’s only P.E.” and then if you want to teach it’s kind of hard to go out there and teach health and science with a large group of kids where you have more than half the kids fooling around and lacking discipline. A counselor who was a former student at UMS noted, “NCLB really has done a number on the electives… I went to this school in the early 90’s we had cooking, we had woodshop, we had glass. But those teachers that were here were the first ones to go.” Another counselor explained that NCLB implementation has made providing access to electives challenging for ELL students in particular: It makes putting kids into classes more challenging because this kid needs this kind of intervention and this other kid needs this kind and this one is in Special Ed. ESL is an intervention program for example. I know they call it ESL but it’s not like the ESL there was before. These kids are at a certain reading level and so they are put into High Point where they take the High Point Scripted program. And then with NCLB you have your electives too and if you don’t have a credential in some kind of elective then you can’t teach it now. So they say give them more electives but all the electives teachers have retired, have gone on to something else because all of those things were done away with a while back, so what electives do you give to the students then? We’re lucky that we do have Art here and computers, but not everybody has it. The lack of electives for ELL students raises questions of educational equity and only further highlights how NCLB provisions have limited teacher instructional autonomy. Similarly, a Math teacher explained how NCLB implementation is resulting in a narrowing of curriculum in urban middle schools: It’s taking electives away from the students and not giving them a holistic education. At some schools, at many elementary schools there’s just four subjects: Math and English, Math and English. We’re failing so all we’re doing is Math and English. They are trying to put Science and History to the side completely. And then they come to us and they are not ready. I’ve been in a program where you can go three hours plus just on one subject. Even though there are a lot of components to English Language Arts and the reading, and they’re very important, but a scripted program where a lot of the day is devoted to one subject with no proof of anything. I mean is that “skill building”? I don’t know. 213 The overemphasis on Math and English has limited opportunities for students and placed a stranglehold on teacher curricular innovation as well as instructional autonomy. In addition, teachers expressed that the skills of students were not being honored by the changes promoted during NCLB implementation. One teacher remarked: We talk about NCLB and multiple intelligences, you know the different abilities and talents and that every child has them and you know what, by not catering to them you are leaving children behind. Some are really good with hands, some are just kinesthetic. Some are just musicians and artists. And they are all just being cut out and that kind of turns off the kids; they’ve been left behind In a similar vein, several teachers expressed a need to reinstitute alternative skills programs. A Math teacher noted: The reality is that not 100% of the kids are going to go to college, that’s the reality, they’re not. And the thing is they just don’t want to, or whatever the reason is, I think we just have to invest more money in alternative skill building. What I mean is we need more mechanics, and more shops, and we need places where kids can design stuff and tap into space technology, something that promotes engineering. Something that is not always just books and reading and writing. We need to also train blue collar workers because now at this point I think everything of that nature is just being outsourced, you know companies just build in a different country and it’s a lot cheaper. But, I think these alternative things stimulate students to continue growing in certain parts because they’re talented in that area. You know they can be natural mechanics, or engineers when it comes to aeronautics and there is none of that with NCLB, it’s all being cut. Teachers reported disappointment with the excessive emphasis on test preparation instead of meaningful learning. A Science teacher expressed that the overemphasis on test scores is “dangerous to creativity in teaching because all of a sudden teachers are teaching to the test and whether the school gets out of PI all depends on test scores not actually focusing on necessarily learning.” 214 The pressure to perform on teachers is high resulting in elevated stress levels. For example, a new Special Education teacher remarked: I get real stressed out if these kids don’t pass the test. When I first started I used to teach them for the skills they don’t have and what they needed, teaching them to mastery, and I get so stressed out and I wonder should I teach them to the test or should I teach them to the skills they need? Kruger, Wandle, and Struzziero (2007) discussed how high stakes testing puts “considerable pressure on schools, teachers, and students to achieve at high levels” which can result in negative consequences when “…the external pressure exceeds the ability of the school or individual to cope with the pressure” (p. 109). Teachers also expressed that the requirement to do schoolwide test preparation distracts from meaningful learning and is not meant to improve student understanding of academic content. A Science teacher expressed: Another thing is because we are a PI 5 or whatever school, we are required to do test prep and this is totally teaching to the test. So we are spending our instructional time telling students that it doesn’t matter if you are a critical thinker or problem solver, what matters to us a school is if you can eliminate the wrong answers on the scantron so that our test scores go up. We never talk about implementing a homeroom so that kids actually benefit from a literacy program or college and career awareness or community service. We never talk about stuff like that. Instead we talk about let’s do a homeroom, 20 minutes detached because it’s easier for the testing coordinators to organize the math stuff if it’s detached. Whenever we discuss implementing a homeroom it’s all about the test scores, it’s never about setting aside time to address the emotional needs of students, or giving students a program to learn poetry, or anything like that. Even right now we’re doing so-called goal setting with the students outside of homeroom where administrators are meeting with students and guess what they’re goal-setting about? How to improve their test scores, how to move from far below basic to basic, and other things that do not matter to the kids. It’s not about their goals in life or dreams. It’s not about helping the kids. Teachers expressed disappointment that the goal-setting engaged in by the school administration during NCLB implementation focused solely on test scores. 215 A Science teacher noted, “I hear the administrators talking about who to choose for these goal setting sessions and they say, ‘We want to target these kids because these ones will give us more bang for our buck’ they are treating kids like commodities.” Teachers also reported that intense pressure to teach to the test interrupts their regular instructional time. For example, a Math teacher shared: It’s just like how should I teach them different so maybe this year the scores do go up a lot. Instead of actually learning the curriculum I should spend a lot of time just giving them test strategies which really wasn’t my focus but now as a teacher my focus is shifting. It is shifting because I do want to get those results. I do want to see. Just like the kids see a good grade, I like to see a good grade too. Okay here is a prime example, we were in class and there was a question because I try to give them warm ups like CST type questions for the warm up and it was something like solving equations with a variable on both sides. And I could tell that half the class knew how to do it, even though we spent about three weeks just talking about equations, equations, equations. I told them and I feel kind of bad, because my whole point of being here is to teach them how to solve equations with a variable on both sides. But I had to tell them, “You know look, and even if you didn’t know how to solve equations, look at what we could do. You could substitute which is still a skill, but it’s not to me as an important skill as knowing how to solve equations. That’s the standard. And I had to think about it but in my head I thought well whatever works because I want them to get the right answer. The amount of instructional and professional development time devoted to test preparation inhibits urban teacher ability to develop and implement student centered, culturally relevant learning experiences. Opinions about the Standards There was great polarization among UMS teachers regarding the benefits of the Standards. Most teachers agreed that having Standards was a positive but questioned the appropriateness of the levels of rigor in the California Content Standards for middle schools and whether teachers should be tightly constricted by the Standards. 216 For example, a veteran Math teacher noted that when they first began teaching there were no Standards. This teacher and others expressed that when the Standards are used as a blueprint and not a straight jacket they “…give the teacher something to look forward to maybe if some portions of it are not to our liking it gives us a blueprint of some basic things we need to strive for.” Counselors also expressed that Standards are good when used as guidelines for learning. A counselor noted: I think it’s a positive because it’s letting students know this is where you’re at and this is where you need to go. So it gives us a clear picture of how far behind the student is and how much we need to work to get them to where they need to be and the teachers too it lets them know this is where my students are at and what am I going to do to get them to where they need to be. How Standards are employed makes the difference between increasing teacher autonomy and creativity or severely limiting those aspects of teacher professionalism. Hence, many teachers expressed they were ambivalent about the Standards. For example, a Math teacher noted: I think accountability is really necessary especially for lower income schools that were completely neglected and left behind. I think accountability is a positive aspect of it. Obviously it’s not being implemented correctly. I don’t know though I have positive and negative thoughts about Standards. I think we need them but at the same time being so stringent to the Standard that you don’t give kids a full, holistic education, you know where we just teach to the standard or we just teach to the test can become a negative aspect of it. Many teachers expressed that they were concerned about the rigor and developmental appropriateness of the California Standards. A Social Studies teacher explained: Well the Standards are written for college. I mean the eighth grade history standards sound like they’re in college, you know we’re going to analyze and discuss implications of the Jacksonian Principles and these four, I think it’s four, Supreme Court cases. 217 And I’m looking at that and going, you know from this Standard alone, I could have an entire textbook and then they come out with these are the power standards, these are the ones we always do. Well then why did you put those other ones in? In addition to questioning the developmental appropriateness of California Standards, teachers expressed that for many of the content areas, the scope of the California Standards is too vast for students to master. A Science teacher explained: It’s really difficult. I mean for seventh grade we have two textbooks and the expectation for the seventh grade teacher is to finish the Science portion in one semester and the Health portion in another semester and that’s unacceptable. And it’s funny because in seventh grade there is the same amount of standards as the eighth grade science has but they have a whole year to teach eighth grade, we only have four months. And that’s the problem, NCLB states there’s a better education for students but it’s not better. I mean health, a lot of what is in there is the parent’s responsibility. I mean teaching a child how to brush their teeth which is one of the health standards is a parent’s responsibility. Now, if you’re going to link it to Science, you know learning about how cells divide, what’s going on, how would you diagnose a sickness in an anatomy and physiology class, then I’m all for it. But I am not up for teaching the middle school students brush your teeth, how to put deodorant on and all of that because I feel like that is the responsibility of parents. You know why is that my responsibility now as a teacher? Now we have to be parents, we have to be social workers, we have to be counselors. I feel like everything under the sun has been placed under the responsibility of teachers and it’s not fair and it’s setting us up for failure. The scope and developmental appropriateness of the California Content Standards remained points of contention among educators. While teachers liked having instructional guidelines, they disagree with using Standards to restrict teacher innovation. District Pacing Plans Part of NCLB implementation in LAUSD was the hasty development and imposition of pacing plans for middle and secondary schools. A teacher noted, “I feel like the pacing plan makers in the District was not thinking of what is best for teachers and students, they were just fulfilling a requirement to check off for NCLB.” 218 Teachers expressed that District pacing plans strips them of their professional and pedagogical expertise. There is concern that new teachers feel they must adhere to the pacing plans at all costs. A teacher expressed concern that “[many] first year teachers or new teachers are timid and not necessarily aware of the politics and the grunt of teaching and they look at that pacing plan and think that’s the bible and that they must follow it.” Some teachers expressed ambivalence about the benefits of District pacing plans. A Math teacher explained their mixed feelings: There’s pros and cons in the pacing sometimes. Well let me talk about the pros. It gives you a general blueprint. But I don’t stick to it. I kind of change sequences, whatever I feel is fit. I resequence it. Certain parts I can move through faster and certain parts I need to slow down. But then there’s some units where it’s a little longer but then you have to hurry up because the periodic assessment is coming. I think it does need to be refined. The intentions are good. I think it kind of keeps everybody in general moving in the right direction. But it definitely needs refinement in terms of sequencing, ordering things, timeframes, and all that stuff. But overall it’s a good thing. In addition to difficulties with district pacing plan sequencing and time requirements, teachers expressed that they found the District pacing plans curricularly limiting. A teacher noted: I find it dictates our creativity – it stifles it because we are bound and chained by these standards and you can’t veer from them and it upsets me but you know what’s even worse is the District mandates, so we have these sick things called pacing plans and the way they’re organized just at times does not make sense. The order in which makes sense to me is the best way in which I am going to effectively and efficiently teach my students whereas maybe the way you teach is completely different from the way I teach, the order I mean, and it works for you and your kids learn. So, who’s to say what order is correct and what order is not? I mean, for English I know they start with narratives. Why narratives? Why not expository? You know, I don’t understand that logic. Teachers explained that depending on the style of management employed at the school site, the pacing plans could be beneficial or completely restrictive for teachers. 219 An English teacher noted that the pacing plan caused them to feel coerced to move at a pace that may even be harmful to students, “…because if administration comes in and sees you are on a topic the pacing plan says you should be done with they write it down. It’s awful, it’s a disservice to the teachers, the parents, and the students as well.” Similarly, a Science teacher explained: It’s just preposterous. Let me give you an example. They want my students to learn mitosis in two days. That has 5 phases, five different stages where they need to at least understand the concept-- you know what happens in each stage and what that stage is called. I mean it is unrealistic, especially with an English Language Learner-- that is unacceptable to me. And I am going to be very honest, I get my pacing plan and the spiders use it more than I do because it to me is ridiculous. And it’s a District pacing plan and to me I feel like the District was rushed to make something as a result of NCLB and so they got together a few Science people and said let’s concoct something literally in a couple of days because I know people who were involved. They said it was all just to make the State Department of Education happy and shut them up because we’re complying with what that law says but here you go. And depending on what type of administrator you have it will dictate whether you are actually going to work line by line to force that pacing plan into a classroom or you have the other polar opposite which is ‘do what you do, I trust you’. So you have those two extremes of management that teachers are being subjected to. Ultimately, the pacing of classroom instructional activities needs to be left to teaching professionals. Learning is a fluid activity; only a teacher is privy to the real-time needs and emerging levels of understanding among of students. Special Education teachers expressed that the District pacing plans are causing them significant challenges in meeting student needs. A Special Education teacher explained: I liked the fact that last year I taught the regular ed. book and then I taught DRW [Directed Reading and Writing] and I looked at the standards as a goal, you know this is what I need to teach and the standards are these goals I have. Now this year I am handed a pacing plan where I have to adhere to something. 220 I’d rather have it where this is what the kids need to know by the end of the year, here are your books, materials, and resources, plan it out accordingly so that you meet these goals at the end of the year. I like that way better than a pacing plan or something that is going to force me to force concepts onto my kids. I like the flexibility where if the kids aren’t learning something I can go back to it rather than tell them no because I need to teach this by this certain time. Actually, the flexibility I had last year made my job more manageable because I had flexibility to teach them where they were at but I also kept in mind the end goals. Instead now I have to tell them sorry we need to move on now because the test is coming up. Teachers need the flexibility to determine the pacing of instruction to best meet student needs and increase student understanding of instructional material. Externally imposed pacing plans and compliance based testing via district administered periodic assessments deprofessionalize teachers and do not meet the needs of students. Opportunities for Reteaching and Holistic Education Teachers expressed that the District pacing plans made opportunities for reteaching and holistic education scarce because teachers are forced to move on to new topics before students demonstrate readiness. A Math teacher noted that the pacing plans permit little time for reteaching: I like the standards and it is good because you always have to have a goal for teaching, you know an objective or something so I like that. But the pacing, I don’t feel like it is allowing me… I feel like I’m doing a disservice to the kids because of the fact if I have 70% of the kids that understand the concept or 50% then it’s like remediation, remediation, remediation! And we don’t get that like some of my kids I’ll offer my time after school, three days a week and my kids don’t take me up on the offer to come back to tutoring to kind of brush up on those skills that they’re going to need. So I feel like the only thing I can do is make sure I include it in a warm-up. You know just some opportunity for reteaching but I can’t reteach it because we still have to move on. And I feel like it’s a disservice to a lot of the kids the way NCLB has forced the District to force us to force our kids to learn this way. There are different types of teaching. For example there’s teaching for concept building and right now that’s not being reinforced. 221 And it’s like when you try to do that it allows for more time, there is a need for more time beyond what the pacing plan allows, especially knowing that every single year I never get to the last two chapters of the book which is a big portion of the standards because I feel And so maybe like the second week of school I feel like I’m rushing the kids, I’m halfway teaching them, they’re memorizing formulas instead of concept building and that’s the part that’s frustrating. I don’t like the pacing of the pacing plan. District imposed pacing plans strip teachers of instructional autonomy and dictate daily instructional activities to the detriment of students. Teachers need to reclaim that autonomy so that they are not rushing the learning process and instead are tailoring learning experiences to respond to student readiness to advance. Teachers noted that the extreme pacing of the pacing plans limits their ability to build prior knowledge necessary for success in the content areas. For example, an English teacher shared: The pacing plans assume that the students have all of this wealth of prior knowledge, that they know everything about the setting, what a plot diagram looks like, the influence of the character trait on the plot line and so on. I mean it is so difficult to even get them to step one that by the time you even get through step one it’s like, “Oh and the test is next week.”. Well I didn’t cover figurative language, I didn’t cover compound and complex sentences, what am I to do? And then even when you give them the test there is no time to go back and say, well, you all messed up on the short constructed response for example so let’s go back and see how to fix this. There is no time because you have to say, “And now it’s time for expository and you need to learn how to do a research paper. It’s just an insane timeline they have given us that assumes that all of our kids came in with the same level of prior knowledge, that they all have critical thinking skills, they all know plot elements, and so all we really should do is a brief review of the concepts they’ve learned before and go on. When the reality is that we have to start back at step one, what is a character, what makes up a character, and so on. When the kids don’t even have that how can we possibly be talking about character traits, examples, how traits effect the plot and so on. It just all snowballs and you just don’t know where to begin half of the time. 222 Pacing plans neglect student learning needs and prior knowledge by assuming that all students enter with the same levels of cultural and instructional backgrounds. Similarly, a Special Education teacher explained that the pacing plans disregard the learning characteristics of Special Education students: One of the big things about the population of Special Ed. students is that they are wired differently, they have deficits, and when they don’t have access to the general train of thought they work about it in a roundabout way sometimes where we have to help establish those connections for them. With the pacing plans that the District thinks they need to go ahead and adhere us to in order to comply with NCLB testing requirements, isn’t always in the best interest of our students. Because of NCLB we see all of this push for test success and yet that’s at the cost of other academic subjects. For example, History and Science being neglected at the elementary level. And then when students get to us at middle school and high school they don’t have the foundations that they need. The purpose of externally generated pacing plans as implemented during NCLB is to strip teachers of instructional autonomy. Pacing plans that are not generated by individual teachers and tailored to student characteristics contribute to further teacher deprofessionalization by suggesting that teachers do not know how to effectively organize, sequence, and deliver instruction. District Periodic Assessments Teachers expressed that in addition to the difficulties presented by the district pacing plans, the district Periodic Assessments implemented during NCLB cause disruption to the flow of instruction and limit opportunities for reteaching. Preparing for the periodic assessments resulted in additional stress for teachers and students and many questioned their usefulness. A Math teacher explained: I mean I have an objective on my calendar until the end of January because I have to get ready for periodic assessments, I break down the standards, list all the objectives and it definitely helps to plan but there’s just differences… 223 In one of my classes they just fly by which is the first time ever this has happened. The other class I tried to reteach them order of operations again today and still 30% of them failed the quiz again. And I’m like I have to move on to equations. I have to or else you don’t get it done and I mean it’s very helpful in structuring but the time is an issue. The state test is in May on top of all these other new tests so we need to cram it all in. District periodic assessments have contributed to the refashioning of schools as test preparation machines. These quarterly tests for compliance with the district pacing plans are merely instruments to ensure that teachers march in lockstep towards the goals set for them by the district. They are not meant to provide any meaningful opportunities for holistic teaching or even reteaching. As soon as one unit is completed and tested, a new unit must begin. Teachers also noted that the district Period Assessments are often unconnected to the California Content Standards. A Science teacher explained: They ask questions on the tests too that have nothing to do with anything. For example, radioactive isotopes – where is that in the Standard? They ask questions on those periodic assessments that are not even in the Standards, like some college level person who clearly has a degree in Science wrote that question but I am thinking, these are twelve year olds taking this test and they need to learn about radioactive decay but nowhere does it say you need to teach them about radioactive isotopes, that is so advanced chemistry. The only concepts we are supposed to teach them according to the Standards is radioactive half-life, yet there are the questions about isotopes right there on the periodic assessments made by the District. It’s wrong because the kids don’t have that prior knowledge and they aren’t even required to. Teacher professionalism and autonomy has been negatively affected by NCLB implementation. In addition, current teacher training programs inadequately prepare teachers for the challenges that face urban schools. 224 While teachers are ambivalent about the benefits and drawbacks of Standards, they unanimously stated that district responses to NCLB requirements in the form of pacing plans and periodic assessments have interrupted instruction and complicated opportunities for reteaching and holistic teaching. Interests of Students and Communities UMS teachers are deeply concerned about the effects NCLB implementation is having on the interests of students and communities. Teachers expressed concerns about national benchmarks, lack of funding, class size, disparities in schools access to resources, deficiencies in elementary curriculum, increasingly negative effects on student motivation, neglect of the needs of gifted, special education, and ELL students, and disbelief in the concept of 100 percent proficiency. Additionally teachers discussed disappointment with the defeatist State and Federal responses to test score gains, multiple questions about utilizing standardized tests as a measure of learning progress, and the need to assert educational goals that are larger than standardized test performance. National Benchmarks Teachers feel that national benchmarks for education are inappropriate because they do not address local contexts or concerns. For example, a teacher noted: I think also not doing nationwide mandates, because for like example in our area we need to differentiate for English Language Learners and in other areas it’s a different need. You can’t have nationwide benchmarks when we are a very diverse Nation and we have different needs in each community. Even in each of the periods I teach I have different needs I need to address and having a national benchmark that we all have to do the same goal is stupid; it doesn’t make sense, but if it was more vocalized for making a goal for yourself and obviously the second part would be not proficiency but measuring the end growth of the student which not only is validating for the student but for the teacher and it will show more than just “Oh you’re proficient.” Proficient at what? 225 It’s better to see this is where I came from this is where I’m going and to measure growth instead of mastery or something else like that. The ignorance, or disregard for local contexts and concerns demonstrated during NCLB implementation was often cited as a source of concern among teachers. National benchmarks fail to consider or even incorporate local contexts and concerns. Class Size In addition to lack of funding, teachers expressed that the fact that class sizes remain so large makes achieving the goals of NCLB improbable. In order to raise student achievement, more individualized instructional opportunities are needed. A Math teacher suggested: How about No Teachers Left Behind? Reduce class sizes, pay them more, restore some respect to the profession. It’s not really attracting and holding people who have degrees because they need to get paid. I think money is a big part of it. I think money ultimately leads to resources, a variety of different resources that are needed in the classroom. Let’s hire more teachers, let’s have more space so we can have a better ratio of teacher to student and that I think is a major step in NCLB aside from curriculum. Many teachers expressed that more teachers needed to be hired in order to reduce class sizes. A Science teacher explained: I had 42 kids in my classes last year, how the heck can I get to all of those kids equitably? You know, and then I’m going to get blamed when I have a high fail rate in that class. That’s not fair. And then on top of it the administration did not hire enough teachers so yes it was my choice to take on an extra class but that’s still taxing on the teacher. So, I’m blamed for the failure when I’m trying to help put a Band-Aid on the problem of not hiring enough teachers. Teachers also expressed that middle school classrooms need smaller class sizes due to the increased levels of personal attention students require at these grade levels. 226 A Social Studies teacher noted explained the complexities involved with individualizing learning: I mean they have to understand. They think teaching is easy and they think if they just put up a bar and say you’ll get to this point in no time is wrong because these kids, especially middle school kids, they bring issues from home to the school. And you have 120, 130, or 140 students in all your classes now and 180, 190 two years ago, it’s a lot and it’s not that easy and they think sometimes teachers come in at 8:00 and leave at 3:00 and no that doesn’t happen. But politicians make education sound simple and that’s what I don’t understand their perception. Similarly, a Science teacher explained the importance of smaller class sizes in order to meet the needs of individual students: If you look at a doctor, they make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year and they see one patient per hour. We see 32-42 kids in 50 minutes who all have different problems, different learning styles, different issues at home, different emotional levels and needs, different reading levels, different language abilities, and we see all of those kids and have to service them equally in a 50-minute period and I get paid far less than a doctor does. The class sizes are just too large to differentiate instruction and meet the student needs and if I don’t make sure that those kids pass with flying colors, I am the one that has failed according to NCLB. I feel like NCLB puts a huge burden on teachers and not enough on all parties involved including administration. The multitude of challenges facing urban students and teachers emphasize the need to develop more individualized curricular approaches that have not been possible during NCLB implementation. The one-size-fits-all approaches promoted by the overemphasis on standardized testing discourage more individualized, inclusive curriculum innovations. Disparities in Schools Access to Resources Teachers strongly emphasized that the disparities in schools access to resources is an overlooked factor in efforts to close achievement gaps. A counselor expressed: I really believe in the importance of stressing to these politicians how can you have standards but not everybody has the same resources. Maybe we should focus on making it equal for everybody in terms of resources. 227 We say we have equal schools but we don’t; based on the area you live in you either have less or you have more Neighborhood boundaries and subsequent district boundaries produce inequities in public school access to resources. Massey and Denton (1993) outlined how racial divisions between residential communities in America were maintained even during times of great population shifts. Additionally, Bischoff (2008) found that school district fragmentation increased multiracial segregation between districts. Similarly, a national increase in resegregation throughout the 1990s has been noted (Clotfelter, 2001; Orfield & Lee, 2004). Teachers expressed that it is unfair to expect students to perform similarly when the resources available to them are so disparate. A Science teacher explained: I mean kids over in that county where they have tons of tax dollars playing for supplies and they have brand new microscopes for every two kids and my kids get one microscope per ever four kids it’s totally inequitable. You’re asking me to compete on a completely different playing field. Similarly an English teacher noted the differences among local school access to resources: I mean even the schools that I’ve been around, even on a day of shopping like let’s say when I go to Pasadena you have like South Pasadena Middle School where they always have a sign where they’re doing some sort of fundraiser for technology that the school has. And it always amazes me that they have like 500,000 dollars and I think “Well isn’t that fabulous!” What will they fundraise next year if they have that in one month? And it always bothers me that I have to struggle to get this kind of technology to our kids when all they have to do is fundraise for one month and they’ve got it. There’s no way that that middle school is going to be on the same playing field as us. We could try, I could buy whatever I personally possibly can but it will never be the same even if our kids were shipped over there I’m sure they’d be amazed at all these wonderful things they have in the classroom and I am sure that if we were to show them the differences they would feel like they were being left behind. I know they would ask why is it that they can have these things and I can’t. 228 Teachers continually expressed that socioeconomic variations among communities made achieving the goals of NCLB nearly impossible; educational gaps cannot be significantly closed until economic gaps are adequately mediated. Schools are not on even playing fields so expect them to compete with one another is unrealistic. Preferential Funding of Charter Schools Teachers expressed they were frustrated by the preferential funding of charter schools during NCLB implementation while public schools like UMS continue to flounder economically. A Special Education teacher explained: I am just angry that these charter schools just seem to be flooded with funds. It’s just so disproportionate in funds. For example, I heard some of these charter schools give their kids scholarships from their own funding a lot of the time. And what do our kids get? A taco and a raspado is what they get for a reward here and that’s it. And those are what they get for behavior not anything academic. They get nothing for academic achievement. While charter schools are flooded with funds to incentivize student performance, traditional public schools are left behind with traditional, largely irrelevant means. Another Special Education teacher discussed the differences in funding and resources available to charter schools: I like the fact that charter schools have a lot more teeth to them. They have their parents sign a contract, and they uphold the contract. I mean we did that just for face value last year as a result of NCLB requirements, you know where we had that compact between parents, teachers, and students and we said everybody is going to abide by it. And it looks great on paper but there’s no teeth to it and the kids don’t do their homework and the parents don’t make sure they get their homework done as promised, and nothing happens. At a charter school if your kid is not doing their work or meeting the contract it’s hey goodbye but not just punishments. They even have a better rewards system. I was reading in the newspaper where the students at one school earn points and once they get enough points those are converted to dollars, and if they accrue so many dollars they get to go on a big fieldtrip, I mean go on a plane and go somewhere as part of their reward for working hard. 229 And I think to myself that would be great if we did that to motivate our students. It is frustrating here to teach when we don’t have that kind of support or means to do the same for our kids. The deregulation of charter school governance affords such schools with greater means to ensure that students and parents are more accountable for student performance. For example, while charter schools can dismiss students for failing to meet learning contracts, public schools are not afforded with such levels of operational levity. De facto Segregation Teachers expressed that NCLB implementation has increased and intensified de facto segregation. Teachers strongly agreed with an English teacher who summarized: Initially NCLB was designed to ensure that people of color had a chance too and that they would have equity and access to a rigorous, high standards education and to meet that gap or level the playing field at least. But I don’t see how we can do that when our schools are still highly segregated. I mean how do you do that? How do you have kids who are never exposed to other cultures, other ways of thinking – especially other ways of thinking because people are trapped in their own, you know whatever their parents think, that’s what they come to school with… They’re never exposed to other cultures so I don’t see we can ever really level the playing field when our schools are still so highly segregated. Even the magnet program here, okay, so I’ll have some Mexicans mix with Salvadorians and sprinkle in an African American or two every other year – it’s still not enough. You know the White kids refuse to come here. If we want to send our kids they have to go far and they’re already waking up at 5:30 in the morning, at the bus stop by 6:00 and then we have to ship them to the Valley just to be around White people so that they can interact. I mean even in terms of Chinese and Koreans, we used to have more people here but now they don’t want to come here. And so we don’t have the kind of system where you can implement this kind of punitive legislation like NCLB but you don’t provide the tools to the students. I think that’s really unfair; they say their trying to make everybody even and the schools are not the same, the staff is not even the same. If you go to the Valley the teachers are there for a very long time; there is stability there. 230 You come to East L.A. or South Central you have teachers who are long term subs who are just trying to survive without proper training; those kids are so left behind and yet they’re expected to meet the same standards. I don’t see how that can happen. I think it is so unfair. White flight from and low levels of educational attainment within urban communities has impacted educational achievement. Domina (2006) discussed how context influences the educational achievement of children, and more specifically that educational segregation, or the reality of residential and social stratification by educational attainment and the resultant human capital hubs and brain drain zones reproduce inequity; specifically, “children who grow up in places with high concentrations of college graduates enjoy greater educational resources than those who grow up in places with lower educational concentrations” (p. 182). This is why the reality of de facto segregation in our urban school communities cannot be overlooked. Iceland and Wilkes (2004) found that Latinos in Los Angeles are experiencing alarming levels of segregation from Whites (see also Charles, 2006 for an examination of residential segregation in Los Angeles). In the case of UMS, it is observable in both the student profile as well as the faculty and administrative profile; at every level the school is primarily Hispanic/Latino. Stiefel, Schwartz, and Chellman (2007) found that in the state of New York, schools are so highly segregated that more than half were too homogeneous to report test scores for any racial or ethnic subgroups. Schools like UMS are increasingly racially homogeneous from the top down as Whites and other races flee to more suburban areas that are not as plagued by the persistent label of failure. 231 Ignoring Social Inequities In each focus group interview, teachers strongly emphasized that NCLB implementation has ignored the social inequities that contribute to student levels of achievement. A Science teacher noted: I feel the best way to describe he student body is they are very provincial. It’s like the student body most of them only know, and there’s nothing wrong with community pride and there’s nothing wrong with loving your community, but to have the idea that there’s more to see out in the world as well, I think that’s really lacking. That students have community pride is commendable, but to become insular in that pride is dangerous to the democratic principles of diversity and integration. In addition, teachers outlined that there are environmental issues within the community that hinder student performance that NCLB fails to address. A Physical Education teacher noted: I don’t think they know what it’s like for an urban teacher in an urban school and all they have to do. I mean we are dealing with environmental issues as well, outside issues that affect our school that maybe in another school district they don’t have those issues. You know they have a mother at home, they have a parent at home saying “Do your homework,” they have a dad at home helping with the discipline. I mean we have kids here who don’t have a mom, or don’t have a dad, or they’re being raised by their grandparents who have already raised their own children and now they’re raising their children’s children. I mean there are so many issues. And if you can reach that kid even if he doesn’t do well on the test but he does well in your classroom then that is a plus for you. You are achieving. So they need to get out of their office and their leather chair to come down here and see what teaching and learning is about. We’re not like every other school. The realities of inner-city life affect students at UMS. Direct or indirect exposure to violence has been shown to have a host of negative emotional and psychosocial effects on inner-city youth (Aisenberg & Mennen, 2000; Buka, Stichick, Birdthistle, and Earls, 2001; Ceballo, Dahl, Aretakis, & Ramirez, 2001; Garbarino, 2001; Veenema, 2001). 232 In addition, that Latino youth are disproportionately affected by continual exposure to violence has been outlined by numerous researchers (Anglin, Song, & Lunghofer, 1995; Gladstein, Rusonis, & Heald, 1992; Hechinger, 1994). In addition to problems with gangs and violence in the community, teachers noted that economic struggles make school achievement a secondary concern for many students. For example, a Counselor noted the numerous stressors students in the UMS community face that children in other communities may not have to deal with: A lot of these kids go home. One student was telling me that his mom, sister, and his brother rent an apartment with their aunt and they all live in one room. Imagine that for a twelve year old boy. He’s going through all these changes and he has to share a room with his mom, sister, and brother. As an adult I need my space so I can’t imagine him at his age needing his space, so they go home to that. They’re dealing with a lot of stuff and we’re putting unrealistic expectations on them. The politicians aren’t seeing that some of our kids live with one parent, the parents work a lot of hours, they may have an extended family, they live in a one room apartment and they’re there because the parents are working long hours but they have the grandmother or the aunt taking care of them. Or we have kids who live with grandparents, and there are issues with deportation where a lot of them have the dad or someone close to them picked up and sent back to Mexico. Many of the kids help their parents work on the weekends. I mean on the weekends I go downtown and I see a couple of students helping them sell in swap meets or in downtown so they work, there is also high rates of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse in the home. And as a teacher that sees them in class falling asleep or acting out, you don’t know what they’re going through. And it’s that, the human part that politicians don’t see, they just want the test scores. Teachers noted that the pervasive problem of gangs and other environmental issues make focusing on achievement a struggle for many students. A Physical Education teacher explained: One thing we have that other schools don’t have is the gangs. Coming and going to school the kids have to look over their shoulders. Every morning you see kids eating the wrong kinds of foods, hot Cheetos and sweets from the bakery do not get them ready to study. We also have a lack of supervision in the homes. 233 I am sure many of the kids are foster kids or being raised by their grandparents. There are many factors. I think most teachers want to give a well-balanced education and if they’re just teaching to the test we’re going to have robots who can take a test but can you cook? Can you prepare yourself a meal? Do you know how to clean the floor if it gets dirty? You know little things like that. Similarly, another Physical Education teacher noted: Some kids can’t even get to school they say “Oh Mr. I can’t go to the library” and I say “Why not?” and they say “There are gangs over there a ton of them.” So this is about their life and safety. At this level, I mean wow at this age they are scared for their life. I mean you would think in high school but this is middle school and they are scared of the same thing. You have so many other social aspects such as education. Some of the parents have difficulty taking care of their own kids… Teachers also noted there is a lack of support in the home for homework or home to school connections. A Special Education teacher explained: And here is the other part of that. In this community, when you send homework home, they are not going to get much support. I had a parent and I told her, I don’t send homework home. I expect you to do these things with your kid and that’s your homework, you know counting money, using value, and so on. So she says that’s she’ll work with her kid, I send things home and it comes back all wrong because she doesn’t have the skills. Yet, I know this parent is doing the best she knows how, she wants to help. But there’s a lot of parents in this community who, first, they don’t have the time, second they don’t have the skills. And to compare us with schools where parent do have the time, the money, and the skills and if they don’t have the time they have the resources to send their kids to after school programs, high end tutoring, and all of these other things to make up for what they don’t have. But our kids can’t do the same because their families do not have those resources even with these programs that NCLB supposedly created but did not fund. In our community, the majority of parents’ backgrounds is not college. I mean even our parent center here, we’re two months into the school year and they just finally now got a sign up on the door that was in English. Another Special Education Teacher explained familial challenges that may produce barriers to achievement: Most of our kids, the mom is in charge and she has five or six kids, how is she going to take care of all of them? 234 And at the same time now we’re in a worse economy on top of it all. Parents are working two jobs, three jobs, mom has two jobs also on top of that. How are they going to take any time to come into school or sit and do homework? Our parents can’t help our kids with reading and writing on the most part. A few of them are new immigrants but the majority are immigrants who are second and third generation who have been here a long time but still don’t know the language. Most of our conversations in parent conferences were in Spanish. This is a community that is not accepting the overall community and culture that is here and that’s the problem. The community rejection of the dominant culture was continually cited as problematic. Another teacher noted: The problem is the Latino culture is one founded on hard work, working with the hands. I tell my kids to look how Latino men get paid 51 cents on the dollar compared to African Americans and Asians hired for the same job but for some reason Latinos make less money so employers know yes they work hard and you don’t have to pay them much money. And that is the culture to just work hard, and NCLB is not going to change Latino culture, or Black culture, or whatever culture it is. Ultimately, student communities that reject the cultural aims imbedded in NCLB will experience limited achievement gains because the goals of standardized education as prescribed are not valued by the community. Deficiencies in Elementary Curriculum Highlighted UMS teachers noted that incoming students are increasingly unprepared to meet the rigors of the middle school content Standards. Teachers discussed how the narrowing of curriculum at the elementary school level is affecting students in middle school. A Social Studies teacher noted: I found out from my kids who went to [a local] Elementary that they didn’t learn History. I asked them, they didn’t learn History and that’s why they went up 57 points because the whole hour of history was gone and they taught English and ESL. They have one hour in elementary school for anything that isn’t Open Court, Math, or P.E. 235 All of everything else goes in one hour a day-- that means Science, History, Group Work, Research, Art, anything else, gets one hour. And there are principals who are actively taking away the History books. NCLB implementation has affected instructional time in elementary schools. CEP (2008a) found that since NCLB took effect in 2002, the shifts in instructional time towards English and math were relatively large and that districts that made such increases reported substantial cuts in times for other subjects including recess, social studies, science, art and music, physical education, or lunch. A former elementary teacher explained that Open Court, the reading program employed in many California elementary schools is the cause of many student comprehension deficiencies: Well that is what Open Court teaches. The students read short stories, learn the vocabulary connected to the story which has no relevance anywhere else, basic grammar, and provide a summary of the story. That is all they do from grades 2-5. I know this because I was an Open Court Teacher. A Social Studies teacher noted that students taught using Open Court seem to have greater deficits of prior knowledge and critical thinking skills: Every year we get a different batch of kids. And to have to struggle with their prior knowledge is getting more and more difficult. The Open Court Program kids are getting in elementary school is completely eliminating any critical thinking skills the kids had. I mean they read beautifully aloud but there are zero comprehension skills. I mean they read a paragraph and then they turn to me and say, “Well, what does it say? What does it mean?” They’re used to just getting the answers to the questions from their teachers. So even this year when we started talking about characters and traits, it took longer than it ever has to get them to be able to tell the difference between a character trait and something that is physically observable in a person. They kept wanting to tell me brown hair was a character trait. And I am standing there going, “It’s linked to it but we talked about this. Let’s get away from looking at the illustrations.” And they still want me to give them the answers. I don’t know if the elementary schools are not showing them how to do it, but they come to me with little to no critical thinking skills. 236 Anyon (2005) noted that students in low-income schools are often delivered impoverished curricula that fail to promote meaningful textual engagement. Reading programs promoted by NCLB implementation that emphasize oral fluency to the neglect of comprehension and critical thinking continue to damage urban students. Such programs are producing students that can read text aloud with great fluency but do not understand what they have just read. Teachers noted that in addition to declining critical thinking and comprehension skills, incoming students are increasingly resistant to independent, creative thinking tasks. A Science teacher noted: It’s like the schools are being used to take the creativity out of children. I think the children are being programmed to give us the ‘right’ answer and not ponder that there are many different ways to solve a problem and as scientists we want that, but the paradox with NCLB in play is we must lead them to the right answer and they better bubble it in for that test. And that’s my whole problem. You know this year, I want to go deep but also I want my kids to get the concept that’s going to be tested. It’s either that or they’re not going to do well on the test. You know, I want to do a project and that means when I get to study density we’re just going to have to rush through it. And you can tell the critical thinking and creative thinking just is not evident in students anymore. For example, if I ask my students to do something like create a trading card for a popular scientist where it lists the scientist’s name, accomplishments, etcetera. If I put up a model, the students copy the model exactly. And they turn in their work and it’s identical to the model. And I tell them, “No, you need to think of a way to present the information in your own format, the model is just there to give you ideas.” But they are getting so used to providing the right answer and it must be what is shown because that is what testing teaches them. 237 Another Science teacher explained that students are seemingly increasingly conditioned to expect passive learning experiences: But you know it’s really frustrating, because a lot of my students they would rather do notes and stuff or book work and they don’t want to do the hands on stuff this year and I’m getting really frustrated. I mean it’s just like there’s a group of students where it seems like they’ve never known anything else, and they strongly resist anything that doesn’t involve regurgitation. They become really resistant to anything that involves them having to think and create. A decline in student motivation and academic performance has characterized the transition from elementary to middle school (Eccles & Midgley, 1989; Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995; Simmons & Blyth, 1987; Wigfield, Eccles, MacIver, Reuman, & Midgley, 1991). Some authors hypothesize that this is because middle schools stress relative ability and performance goals more than elementary schools which tend to stress task mastery more; students perceive that effort and improvement are more valued in task goal orientations and that demonstration of ability and comparative standing with peers is more valued in performance goal situations (Maehr & Anderman, 1993; Midgley, 1993; Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995). Student Motivation Several teachers noted that, “NCLB is taking the fun out of school, for us as well as the kids.” Teachers reported that student motivation to perform on the tests is low because the tests have no value in the lives of students. A Social Studies teacher explained: Again it’s the business model. The test has nothing to do with them. In Japan, the test has everything to do with if students get to go to the next level. When the teacher looks at you and says this is what is on the test, the kids are scribbling away. But here it is the opposite. So I think here if kids knew that the test had some importance to them personally then we would see a different attitude, it might be a motivator. 238 Similarly, a Science teacher explained that current models of learning are not considering the goals of students: Well this kind of goes to a bigger question of what is your goal? And if you talk to the kids it shows. I asked one girl who was sent to me from another class and I asked her “What is your goal, don’t you want to improve?” And she said “I want to work for my parents.” And I said “Oh that’s great, what do your parents do?” And she said, “Well they work in a taco truck.” And I said, “Well that’s an admirable job and nice living but they’re not always stable.” I mean a lot of kids think because their parents are doing something they can do it too and that’s not really true. And that’s why they need things like AVID that takes kids to colleges and opens their eyes to see the possibilities. The problem is kids don’t know there are alternatives that they can seek out and that’s the shame about the counseling office because if you have a good counseling office, I mean it works at a smaller school, or a learning center or a career center they can learn about their options but we don’t even have one here. The research confirms that many working class second generation Mexican immigrants work in occupations that do not differ much from the work of their parents (Waldinger, 2007; Waldinger & Perlmann, 2008). However, the job market is changing and deindustrialization has resulted in a bifurcation of jobs made available to second generation immigrants. Massey and Hirst (1998) and Harrison and Bluestone (1988) outlined how the low-paid manual jobs of the past that were readily available to firstgeneration immigrants are increasingly being replaced by service jobs requiring advanced levels of education. Teachers feel that students are responding negatively to the overemphasis on testing and test scores. An English teacher explained: It seems like some of my students are numb. They see the scantrons come out, they see that newspaper colored district assessment come out and they just kind of turn into a big lump of clay like, “Oh another one.” Some of the kids just make a pattern, zigzag, or design out of the scantron bubbles and say “I’m done.” 239 In addition, many teachers reported that students were exhibiting increasing levels of anxiety related to test taking. An English teacher recounted: I have noticed that more and more students are suffering from anxiety. I had a kid last year where he had to go to the bathroom every time we had to test. If you would say the word test or quiz he would run to the bathroom. So, finally they medicated him until he was like a big lump, just dead and I felt like putting all of this stress on these little kids is wrong. Instead of making them love learning and reading, they kill it for them. The kids don’t want to read, they don’t care about stuff like that because we’re constantly asking them questions and questions and questions about stuff that really doesn’t matter. When they could be focusing on social issues, their own lives, personal things, where they could learn the same skills in a different way. And it just kills their creativity. I notice more and more kids are just finding it stressful to be in school and so they give up on themselves. And these are good, smart kids who can do it, but it is all just so tedious and monotonous that they just go numb. And the smarter they are the more they rebel because they see that this is all baloney and how can we say it’s not? Excessive testing creates an unpleasant, stressful learning environment for teachers and students. Cizek and Burg (2006) found that test anxiety may lower student performance and that test anxiety hinders students from demonstrating their abilities; in addition, females are more anxious than males, African American and Latinos are more anxious than Whites and low ability students are more anxious than high ability students. Teachers and students have reported negative physiological and psychological effects related to testing such as anxiety, nervousness, stomach aches, excessive urination, vomiting, headaches, and loss of sleep (DeBard & Kubow, 2002; Jones & Egley, 2004; Jones et al., 1999; McDonald, 2001; Oehlberg, 2006; Triplett, Barksdale, & Leftwich, 2003; Zeidner, 1998). 240 Needs of Gifted Students UMS teachers noted that the emphasis on remediation resulting from NCLB implementation increasingly leaves Gifted students behind. In 2008-2009 UMS teachers of Gifted students were required to devote weekly class time to test preparation drill sessions because it was a schoolwide initiative, even though Gifted students have been the only subgroup to exceed AYP targets consistently since NCLB implementation. A Social Studies teacher explained: No Child Left Behind, think of the term, there’s a convoy, you travel at three miles an hour, you two travel at six miles an hour, you and I travel at ten miles an hour, you travel at thirteen miles an hour, but by definition, if you’re not going to be left behind then that means we’re all traveling at three miles an hour, so you can see the analogy, so here’s the high powered kid, because you’re not being left behind all of us move at a snail’s pace or there’s something criminally wrong. Ultimately it seems they’ve got a lot of vociferous people out there who are willing to hold forth a lot of expertise they don’t have. Since the inception of NCLB implementation, researchers have voiced concerns that the overemphasis on remediation may lead to a dumbing down of curriculum or slowing down of the pace for Gifted learners and that additionally the individual needs of gifted learners might become increasingly marginalized (Gallagher, 2004; Gentry 2006a; Kaplan, 2004). Teachers expressed frustration that moving students from proficient to advanced is not honored in AYP calculations, thus even father marginalizing Gifted students. One teacher noted that social promotion is damaging Gifted students because a student in Honors classes scoring at basic proficiency level is akin to a regular education student who’s at far below basic proficiency. 241 Furthermore, “the Honors students by definition should all be proficient and advanced and they’ve been allowed social promotion to slack their way on through.” A Social Studies teacher elaborated: One of the biggest pieces of accountability that bugs me is we get points for moving far below basic to below basic and we get points for moving below basic to basic. But if they really wanted no child left behind they would double up the points for moving from basic to proficient and from proficient to advanced, that’s when you have no child left behind, you are getting kudos for the fact… For example I have a girl from my regular class that tried to get into honors and she wigged out. In the sixth grade she was below basic, last year she was basic, this year she is proficient. And it’s like nobody’s giving credit for that kind of movement and if you really want no child left behind that’s what you have to give credit for. Teachers also expressed that they felt Gifted students and teachers were stigmatized by administrative decisions that did not have the best interest of Gifted students in mind. A Science teacher explained: For example, the Gifted scheduling debacle where Gifted students last year were treated inequitably. I feel that our administration is not well educated or informed about the needs of Gifted Learners number one. Number two, I feel that this administration believes that because Gifted students are bright they can have any old teacher and still master the material. I feel like that is not fair to put a burden like that on a twelve year old child. I also feel that other teachers say to me when my students do well that they say ‘that’s because their gifted’. Gee thanks, what about what I have taught them. Some teachers and the administration here has the misperception that Gifted students just learn autonomously with little to no intervention. That’s wrong. So basically last year they wanted to use our Gifted Students as guinea pigs to train new teachers and give them an incentive to stay at our school. They were attempting to split the lines [teaching responsibilities] of Gifted teachers and put in people who were not trained to teach Gifted students which is ironic because I thought the whole thing about NCLB was ‘highly qualified’ well those people they proposed were not highly qualified because they were not trained for Gifted Education but I guess somehow that’s okay not being trained to teach Gifted students but for anything else we’re going to send a letter home. 242 So that is why they were trying to force GATE teachers to teach lower level classes so that those students who were scoring low might magically jump up into the proficient range, it was all about test scores and nothing about improving learning and teaching especially not for Gifted students. That’s why they were willing to let the gifted kids down because the Gifted kids would not make significant jumps in their scores by the way NCLB is calculated. There is no incentive to move students from proficient to advanced in NCLB but there is major incentive to move from far below basic to basic or basic to proficient. What they don’t understand is that without appropriate teaching, Gifted kids can also drop in test scores. Gifted learners have always been overlooked and the implementation of NCLB has only increased their marginalization. In one study featuring elementary and middle school Gifted teachers from Colorado, Mendoza (2006) found that: (a) Gifted students who had been overlooked before were underserved more than ever during NCLB implementation, (b) Gifted teachers were continually told that advanced students were not a priority and they should be focusing on bringing low-scoring students up to proficient, and (c) pull-out services that were the only services many Gifted students received were being eliminated so that Gifted students could participate in test preparation classes along with the general population. Similarly, Gentry (2006b) noted with dismay that teacher test taking training seminars explained that teachers should not be concerned with students who score in the top or bottom quartiles because students in the middle made the most significant gains in test scores. Needs of Special Education Students UMS teachers felt that the needs of Special Education students were being neglected during NCLB implementation. First, teachers felt that AYP calculations even further stigmatized Special Education students. 243 A teacher noted, “You also have to give allowances for certain kinds of population and holding the whole school responsible for the Special Ed. – that’s why they’re called Special Ed. it’s a modified curriculum.” In addition, Special Education teachers continually stated, Special Education students “…are in this population because they don’t have the same abilities as everybody else. They should raise the bar for everybody and for our kids too, but for our kids to be expected to reach the same bar is illogical.” Furthermore, teachers expressed that students with cognitive disabilities are being left even further behind under NCLB implementation. An English teacher explained: I work with intervention kids so I see a lot of RSP (Resource Specialist Program) kids that have literally brain damage that will never be above the third grade. There is no way they can pass the CST or high school exit exams implemented as a result of NCLB. They’re being just passed on. I had a student reading at third grade level and he was at the same grade level, never could advance but he went up 50 points on the CST and that still put him at far below basic but according to them he never improved. So, he had to be put in regular English but the teachers couldn’t handle him; well, you get frustrated when you can’t do the work! He was mainstreamed into regular English because all Special Ed. students have to be mainstreamed. But mainstreaming the student when they’re not able to do it is wrong. Teachers can scaffold but when you water down the work, you know these kids will never make it. So this No Child Left Behind is just a joke for those kids. Teachers expressed that curricular requirements implemented as a result of NCLB do not serve the needs of Special Education students. In addition, curricular decisions are being made centrally without the consultation of teachers. A Special Education teacher explained how they were not consulted regarding changes to the curriculum they were expected to deliver: We just finished doing reading assessments with our eighth graders and the bulk of our kids read below third grade level. A handful read above the third grade. We were just informed about a month ago that he cannot teach DRW [directed reading and writing] to them anymore. 244 DRW is kind of like Open Court in the elementary schools but it’s even more than that, not only is it going over basic, simple reading skills but it’s really teaching them phonics, our district has prescribed to the Language! Program and luckily it has greatly improved since it first came out in 1998 or so. It teaches them basic grammar, phonics skills, we go over fluency rates for letter/sound recognition and reading basic sight words, it starts with the assumption that students are first grade level and builds from there. But now we have to do eighth grade literature with them and the eighth grade curriculum. But with kids reading at such a low level how are they going to get through the passages? The other thing is this is such a huge jump deviating from what they’ve had over the years on how to interpret literature and how to analyze the plot and the setting and how the characterization interacts with the plot and setting. And suddenly he has to do all of this with them that they have really no prior understanding of and on top of that without the training that a regular English teacher had. A month into school or a month and half into school I was told to go to an in-service and completely revise the curriculum I had prepared over the summer and not even provided with the supplies to do it. But we were told by the district this is what NCLB requires and I have no choice in it. We’ve talked to some of the people about it and they agree so there is a split even in the district over this. The administrators tell us, “this is what they’re imposing upon us because of NCLB and we need to make sure they are getting equal access to curriculum” well wonderful. But we were just told that our kids are supposed to take the district Periodic Assessments in History yet the district did not budget any money for our Special Education students to get the resources so yet NCLB says we’re supposed to have equal access to all students but yet the district isn’t budgeting that for us. Luckily we had advocates for the students in the district who said wait but you didn’t get them materials but expect them to test; this isn’t right. I’m getting ready to draft a letter and I know some of the parents are getting ready to write a petition to the district because it’s just not fair to our students that they are being held accountable for things they are not being given access to. Teachers also reported that the lack of administrative knowledge of Special Education pedagogy is resulting in poor decisions during NCLB implementation leading to decreased learning experiences for Special Education students. 245 Teachers regularly noted their frustration with administrative expectations that Special Education classroom activities should mirror Regular Education classroom activities. For example, one veteran Special Education teacher explained: I was told last year by a new administrator that she had yet to see rigorous instruction on our campus or in my severe to moderate class. This administrator told me “Well I liked when I came in after lunch and you were reading a book to the kids, you had a lot of energy. But one time I walked in and you were playing bingo.” And I said, “You mean community sign bingo?” and she said, “Yes.” And I said, “And that’s not rigorous instruction in my class?” and she said, “Bingo?” And I said “Hold that thought.” And I went and got my curriculum handbook and it said, “Student will show learning of community sign labels by placing marker of community sign bingo during community sign bingo play” I took it right from my curriculum, so how can people supervise me when they are not even familiar with the curriculum they are supposed to evaluate. You see it’s not in the curriculum for sixth, seventh, or eighth grade general education kids but they are not keeping in mind that I teach severe to moderate special education kids. But that’s NCLB saying that I must teach grade level standards but yet I have a specific population with learning deficits for which I am not expected to alter anything. Finally, Special Education students are not receiving adequate services from the Resource Specialist Program [RSP] during NCLB implementation. A Special Education teacher explained: The thing that bothers me with RSP is that there is no or seemingly no educational therapy going on at this school now that NCLB has taken over everything. There is no educational therapy going on at this school, it is all revolving around being on the curriculum and taking these tests. But what therapy means that you’re going to sit down at least once a week for an hour with that kid or 40 minutes with that kid and kind of go over strategies, whether it’s phonics skills, reading comprehension skills, or whatever it is, we just don’t have it. And the aide should be reinforcing those strategies, if the aide is just saying “stay on task” or tutoring that is not reinforcing those skills. I think it’s a disservice to the special ed. student to say that the Special Ed. aide is as beneficial to them as the teacher themselves. Because when the administration sends that paraprofessional in there to monitor that child in their Regular Ed. classes, that’s essentially what they are saying. 246 And yet here we are supposed to have cooperative teaching going on between the Special Ed. teacher and General Ed. teacher but how is the aide going to fulfill the role of cooperative teaching? I think it’s erroneous of our District to say that an aide is just as qualified as a teacher and therefore they should be in the classroom with students. Including students with disabilities in the high-stakes testing systems promoted by NCLB implementation has been controversial. NCLB mandates that all students, including those with disabilities are tested have resulted in positive and negative effects. Some positives are that participation in testing has increased and teacher and parental expectations have been raised (Schulte, Villwock, Whichard, & Stallings, 2001; Thompson & Thurlow, 2001) and some studies show that there have been increases in high-stakes standardized test scores for students with disabilities (CEP, 2004; Gloecker, 2001). However, NCLB implemented high-stakes tests often do not provide appropriate accommodations for students with learning disabilities (see Katsiyannis, Zhang, Ryan, & Jones, 2007 and Ysseldyke et al., 2004 for a review of the literature related to students with disabilities and high-stakes testing). Disability Rights Advocates (2001) explained that high-stakes assessments have a discriminatory impact on students with learning disabilities because the needs of learning disabled test takers are not duly considered when tests are developed; additionally, “most testing publishers do not give students with disabilities accommodations they need when testing a sample population, thus leading to a dearth of information and research about the true effect of an accommodation on a testing situation” (p. 3). Irrespective of accommodations received, students with disabilities continue to underperform their non-disabled peers on standardized tests (Horn, 2003; Koretz & Hamilton, 2001). 247 In addition, Albrecht and Joles (2003) noted that failing a high-stakes test provides negative affirmations to children with disabilities often producing a “…stigma of failure, lowered self-esteem, anxiety, an increase in the number of students dropping out of school and the loss of educational advancement and career opportunities” (p. 87). Needs of ELL students UMS teachers expressed that the needs of ELL students are not being addressed during NCLB implementation. Many teachers expressed that it is unfair to test students who are new to the country in English. A Physical education teacher noted, “We have students coming in all the time from Mexico and it really is not fair to force them to take the test in English when they are new to this country.” Teachers expressed that language barriers made testing requirements an additional strain for ELL students. A Math teacher noted: I think that, in terms of the test some of the questions really are higher level which is good I think to have a high standard, however, not to say that we need to lower the standard but a lot of our kids come in with either language barriers or just from previous bad experience in the educational system, so we need to differentiate more. The possibility of getting the score we need to on that test or even the language used on the test is not feasible without differentiation. Similarly, an English teacher explained that the tests often contain culturally bound language or references confusing for ELL students: In testing all the questions will be geared for a certain level or a certain vocabulary for certain types of kids and our kids are sitting there going, now what is this word, and what are they talking about? It doesn’t matter if you go over the root words, Latin words, prefixes, and suffixes certain things are culturally bound. Let me give you an example, on one of the tests a student asked me, “Well there is a ‘yacht’ here miss, what is a yacht?” You know and I told them this is one of those questions where you just have to guess and it breaks my heart because you know inside that the child just cannot answer that question because they don’t have the cultural knowledge of a yacht. 248 In addition, teachers reported that District pacing plans and requirements implemented as a result of NCLB necessitate leaving ELL students behind and teaching in a manner that is not inclusive of ELL students. For example, a Science teacher noted: I just want to give an example about when I teach microscopes. Part of what I learned about education when I was getting my credential and stuff is you want to teach the kids to think like scientists, act like a scientist, and do what a Scientist does. Well, if you want me to do labs, yes, you can have short labs that only take a day, but in general labs at least take two to three days. And then if we have kids that don’t speak English that well or need more time for the vocabulary or things like that then that much more time is needed. Well, with the District pacing plan, you can’t do labs. That placing plan to me dictates that you teach in a traditional way that is not inclusive of ESL learners, it’s more like here’s the vocabulary now make a flashcard kind of teaching. So what’s happening is a lot of teachers just say ‘here’s a microscope, memorize the parts’ I don’t do that. I want my kids to make models, and grasp vocabulary in order to have a working vocabulary. I feel like if they are building something, engineering it, designing it, and figuring out what each part does and making it work , talking in their groups and using academic language, that’s how vocabulary becomes meaningful but that takes about a week. Well, with the pacing plan if I followed it I would not have that kind of time, so I would lose half of the kids anyways if I went by the pacing plan. ELL students consistently score lower on standardized tests when compared to other students and therefore the reliability and validity of including them in educational measurements has been questioned by numerous researchers (Abedi, 2003; Abedi & Dietel, 2004; Editorial Projects in Education, 2009; Fry, 2007; Heubert & Hauser, 1999; Horn, 2003). Curriculum narrowing produced by the overemphasis on test preparation has had negative effects on ELL students particularly in relation to literacy. For example, Wright (2002) found that in the state of California, teachers reported that the amount of time it takes to implement district mandated reading programs resulted in less time to individualize reading instruction and that additionally the scripted reading programs promoted by the state relied on drills and worksheets leaving little time for reading. 249 Opinions about 100 Percent Proficiency Goals Teachers emphatically expressed disbelief in the concept of 100 percent proficiency. Teachers strongly expressed that politicians needed to set realistic goals and provide support to teachers. One teacher noted, “Even if it’s the year 224350 it’s just preposterous. It goes against natural law.” Similarly, a Social Studies teacher explained: Efficiency experts like those working with the post office and so on consider 98% perfection as good as it gets in human beings; well that is with people who are wanting jobs, but school isn’t quite like that so the idea that we’ll hit 100% is not founded in any objective reality. A Special Education teacher concurred: Frankly, I think this whole thing about 100% proficiency by 2013 is as good as saying by the year 2050 we won’t have anybody on welfare. It’s wishful thinking. When I look at the CST scores, my Special Ed. kids are within on average 30 points of our General Ed. population; they’re not far off. And we’re saying that by 2013 these kids that come from these depressed socio-economic backgrounds are going to be on par with the people that are much more affluent. That’s wrong. Teachers expressed that reaching 100 percent proficiency is compounded by the instability of the measurements used to determine proficiency. A Science teacher questioned: I have a question about that. Is there going to start to be continuity with the test, or are they going to keep changing the test every year and bringing out these new problems every year? Every year they test questions and if there is a certain number that gets it right they say too many people know that so we need to make it harder. If they’re going to keep doing that then there will never be 100% proficiency. If they keep manipulating the test to make it harder and harder then the test is not assessing what you learned. Yes, there should be some critical thinking skills required to get to the correct answer but are we going to keep changing the test every year? I also think they plan to revise the standards every few years, so how is that going to work? How can you get to 100% proficiency when the elements used to measure proficiency are constantly changing. 250 In addition, teachers expressed that different starting points would make the attainment of 100 percent proficiency extremely difficult. A Math teacher explained: That makes no sense to me. That’s wrong because if I’m teaching kids that don’t really have algebra skills, and I’m talking simple algebra skills, don’t see the difference between multiplication and division you mean to tell me that 100% of them must be proficient? And I could be a teacher for 50 more years and have different groups of kids that. And that’s where it starts with knowing those multiplication tables in elementary school and understanding the concept of multiplication being repeated addition before you get to middle school where we’re teaching algebra and the teacher tells the students just use your planner for multiplication because there’s a multiplication table in there. Defeatist Federal, State, and District Responses to Test Score Gains Teachers expressed that they find the defeatist Federal, State, and District responses to test score gains disheartening. A Social Studies teacher explained that the 100 percent proficiency goals have only served as a morale crusher for teachers: It’s a morale suck for teachers because we make progress and we’re still told we’re failing. We have made progress every year and we just fail more and more. We’re now what? A PI Year six school? And that part of it is a real morale suck. And if the morale goes out of the teachers then the teaching goes out of the teachers. We may be here and go through the motions but that’s not going to do the kids any good. Another Social Studies teacher elaborated on the perceived impossibility of achieving 100 percent proficiency goals: It actually makes me think it’s a lie. Leaving no child behind may have been the goal but the implementation is not happening. When an entire school in all segments can make progress and still the school is punished for not doing enough. Or when the entire school except Special Ed. Makes progress and the whole school is led to think that they have failed. And the way the goal percentages were set really makes me upset. It’s not that it was 12.5% in the first three or that it was 24% in the next five, it’s that as soon as the people who set this thing up go out of office it goes up to 36%, like that’s possible. 251 Teachers expressed they are frustrated by the fact that they continually make progress and are told that their efforts are not enough. An English teacher noted: It makes it difficult when they have the standards that we’re supposed to be meeting. I mean, every time we feel like we raise our test scores, which we did this year, we’re like ‘We raised them way beyond what we expected” and it’s like the response is “Whelp, not good enough yet, you still stink, let’s see what else you can do.” And I ask myself, “Well don’t I even get rewarded because we went up this many points with this going on and this going on, and kids not being programmed into the correct classes and so on. We still don’t get some kind of a pat on the back because we successfully not only met or API goal but exceeded it?” It kind of feels like to me that every year that goal is just going to get higher and higher and we’re constantly trying to get up to that goal but we’ll never reach it because it will move up another 20 points and you’re like okay it’s further away so you’ll move up another 10 points, well, here’s another 20 and it’s disheartening. I mean I know it’s to make everyone work harder but when you constantly feel like you’re failing pretty soon you’re going to give up and say, “I can’t reach it, I can’t get there”. You know, it doesn’t matter how hard you try it just feels like it’s out of reach all the time. The 100 percent proficiency goals have significantly lowered the morale of public school teachers. Teachers realize that they are working towards a goal that is impossible in the scope of nature or even proficiency or efficiency research. Being continually told that their efforts are good but not quite good enough has not resulted in teachers working even harder to meet the goal of 100 percent proficiency. The progress teachers have made with students is continually undermined by the fact that they still fail to bring all students to absolute proficiency. Standardized Tests as a Measure of Learning Progress Teachers expressed that there is a lack of congruency between what is taught and what is tested. In addition, they expressed frustration that standardized tests attempt to simplify complex concepts into neat multiple choice answers. 252 A Social Studies teacher noted, “It’s almost like trying to make History into Math or something where this is what has to be learned, absolute questions, except history is not that clear.” A Math teacher explained: In terms of the testing, the problem I see with the testing is not insofar with the test itself but because so much rides on it without taking into account some of the other modes of learning that we get drilled on from the start of our career. And yet we’re being assessed based on ‘a, b, c, d’ but we don’t teach ‘a, b, c, d’ all the time if ever. And as far as our education that we try to instill in the kids, it goes to all of the taxonomies, and all this other verbiage but none of that is being assessed. And then we’re looked at through how we’re not performing to it. And I always feel real bad at the end of the CST because I know the kids know it, but that test does not give them a chance to show it. And I know it would take a lot of organization and a lot of pre-planning on the side of the State, and even the school itself to actually create an assessment that shows full scope what the kids can do. I realize that is a very daunting thing to do which is why we use what we use but at the same time, it’s not enough. I know the kids can do and show a lot more than what that silly test shows. Teachers continually called for revisions to the state tests to include more comprehensive measures of performance that go beyond multiple choice exams. Teachers also voiced concern that teachers who do not teach to the test are penalized. They expressed that there is strong pressure to teach to the test in order to garner observable results demonstrating what is currently regarded as effective teaching, the ability to get students to bubble in the correct answer on their scantrons. A Science teacher explained: I think we have teachers who think beyond the box, but because that’s not tested, their test scores may not be as high as if they just taught the script but what I ask is what is better for the child? Is it going to be better for the child to graduate or leave middle school with critical thinking skills so they can cope when they get to high school and then have a better chance of going to college or is it better that they do well on the test? Because has there really been any studies showing that if you are always proficient you automatically go to college or something like that because that’s key. What is the validity of those scores? What do they mean in the long run? I would say not much. 253 In addition, teachers expressed that standardized tests do not measure the full scope of learning that takes place in middle school classrooms. A math teacher shared the various items that standardized tests do not measure: Another thing about what the tests don’t measure, citizenship… the fact that you managed to get that child to sit in your class, not just quietly- the idea that you have a child who when they first started with you could not for the life of them sit down and do anything constructive for whatever reason, or it just wasn’t in the makeup but by the end of the school year there is a compromise between you and that child so that they can come into your class, they can do the work at their level and yet, for all intents and purposes that child still may fail the test when they take it but that growth, they don’t see that. We’re the only ones that are privy to it, they don’t see it. And unless it gets recorded with a camera or something there is no way anyone else can see it, so those are some of the things that particularly frustrate me when it relates to NCLB, because at the end of it they’re still leaving everybody behind, at least a big chunk of us. Teachers expressed that the CSTs and NAEP do not measure learning progress and work to eliminate holistic education. A veteran Math teacher noted: That just goes back to eliminating a holistic education too. And then also you take a test on what they know for the year in May when that is not even a whole year. And so then you are forced to cram a whole year into, well technically it has to be done by April because you review all of April, but the whole year crammed into getting it done by March. That is what my long term plan is right now. All the sixth grade standards, well, not all of them because you can’t teach all of them in depth, but the key ones with the little stars that I will teach by March, then you review in April and you take the test in May. That’s just crazy too. It’s not a holistic education, teaching to the test. In addition, teachers stated that standardized test results were rarely used to inform instruction because the results are so delayed. A new Math teacher explained: I think the time between when we actually get the results of the tests. The results come back to us a year afterwards so obviously the accountability is completely thrown out the window because we get it a year later. But I still for the life of me , I don’t know, it doesn’t make sense to me that we have a test in May which we don’t get the results back in time for it to be of any use that particular year with the students. Why not just have it in June? 254 Finally, teachers would like to see the implementation of a pre and post test if we’re going to continue to rely on standardized tests to demonstrate achievement. A Science teacher explained: See, that’s the problem, to test them and measure their understanding we have these assessments but there is no pre and post so how can we actually assess their growth and have a discussion with our colleagues when there’s no pre-assessment and post-assessment? It’s always, “Our students missed this.” And okay so we missed the mark on these standards and we need to work harder on it. Who’s to say that that’s consistent or a valid test, or a measure or a tool? I like the idea of assessing them at the beginning of the year and then testing them again at the end of the year to see what they’ve actually learned. Because that to me seems like a way of seeing if they’ve actually progressed. That way you can see the growth instead of actually just saying, “Oh here’s this big test and they grew two decimal points” because they want something fast and it costs less money. Well, I think it’s actually faster and more informative the other way. Throughout all of the interviews teachers stated that the pre and post test idea was preferable to the one-shot test currently in place, but with the caveat of timely reporting of results. A Math teacher clarified: I like the idea of a pre-test and a post-test instead of just one big one, but we have to get the results right after. Because if they’re going to give a pre-test and we still don’t get the results until the next school year then that defeats it, it’s just an extra frustration for the kids. Teachers do not feel that standardized tests are a valid measure of learning progress. Instead, such tests are a snapshot of performance in time that may be compounded by a variety of other factors including test taking ability, English language fluency, and test taking anxiety and stress levels. Teachers suggested using more holistic, individualized classroom-based assessments in order to measure learning progress instead of relying on high-stakes assessments. In addition, they suggested that if multiple choice exams continue to be the measurements used, then pre and post tests need to be implemented in order to provide more accurate indicators of learning. 255 The Need to Reassert Education Goals Larger than the Tests In each focus group meeting teachers emphasized that NCLB has highlighted the need to reassert education goals larger than standardized testing. A Science teacher noted, “We have to ask ourselves are we teaching a whole child or teaching a future worker how to comply and fill in bubbles. What are we really doing? What are we really producing for society?” Furthermore, a veteran teacher advised: The current measure of student success and teacher success you kind of have to take it with a grain of salt because it’s about growth. And their alien measurement of success doesn’t mean that you were a failure because you didn’t meet their level of success. Basically it’s about growth and of course you’re going to be striving to see that growth with your kids. A Special Education teacher explained that the focus on Math and English does not embrace student strengths: We’re pressing Math and English, Math and English. We’re not really focusing on their future; instead we’re focusing on pass this test, graduate from high school, and see you later. The problem is we’re focusing on a dream for education based around a test and it’s not the reality of education. I mean globally, the U.S. is always doing not the best because we’re trying to teach everything and we can’t do it. But what we need to do is figure out what our kids are really good at and teach it to them and we’re not doing it. NCLB is causing the focus on the test. Similarly, a Math teacher expressed that education goals should be larger than the test: You’re not just teaching them for a test. You are teaching them to be real and genuine, to be human beings, to be kind, polite, considerate, all this other stuff not just always academic. You’re teaching them how to greet people, how to socialize, how to speak with people, how to problem solve, how to work with people. NCLB doesn’t say anything about that stuff. Some teachers suggested an educational renaissance of sorts. For example, one teacher proposed: We need to be preparing them for the type of leaders that we say that we want them to be: well rounded people that can actually contribute. And so maybe the solution might be just changing the curriculum all together. 256 Maybe we need to go back to some of those things schools had that we took away. Because I see my students sit through six classes all day and they hate it and hate the whole day. But if they offered more electives, and not just music or drama but something other that would teach them how to be a well rounded person. We might see a lot from our kids, like stuff we didn’t even know that they possessed; it’s almost as though we knew it was somewhere but NCLB has just been like a hammer onto it. Teachers agree that we need to assert new goals for education that emphasize student strengths and interests as well as an awareness of emerging international demands. However, they disagree with the goals as asserted by NCLB. Teachers continually expressed that NCLB implementation has not worked in the best interests of students and communities. In each focus group interview, teachers often directly addressed policy makers in angry or frustrated tones; they often expressed that they feel as though the voices of students and teachers was overlooked in the implementation of this sweeping reform effort. Messages to Politicians UMS teachers had several messages they wished to send directly to the political architects of NCLB. Many wanted politicians to critically consider the goals they are setting for American children. A Math teacher explained: As for students NCLB wanted them to meet 100% proficiency, alright let’s suppose, okay you met your goal… ooh, wow, they can really take a test now. I mean what skill does that give them especially when we’re trying to prepare them for the world? We’re trying to prepare these students to be global citizens. Is NCLB really giving students what they need to be successful global citizens? Is it really giving them the skills? I don’t think so. I think the politicians really need to go back and think about that and start empowering the teacher more because they know what the students need and let them have that power back because nobody knows that student better than that teacher because they spend most of their day with them and a lot of the times they spend more of their day with them than their parents do. So really, give it back to the teacher, get rid of NCLB or restructure it or do away with it because it’s really flawed. 257 The priorities in its implementation are very flawed and students need a lot more than just being able to score well on a test, a lot more skills are needed. Teachers want politicians to set more realistic goals. A Special Education teacher noted: It’s a good idea but they need to lay off us a little bit and set realistic goals instead of 100% proficiency. I think they need to lay off the teachers a little bit and not put so much stress on them to meet goals on bizarre timelines. I mean, this isn’t Russia, this isn’t like a 10 year plan, Stalin is not in charge here. I mean what are they going to do to us if we don’t meet this goal? Are they going to shoot us? Fire us? I mean what are they going to do? I think they need to see each community is different and each school is different; there can’t just be one way. We can’t teach the same way here that we would in Kentucky. We need to make sure that teachers are being helped and supported, not threatened. If a teacher is struggling, how will you help them, not put their head on a stick. Similarly, a Social Studies teacher expressed that NCLB is not working: I don’t change things that are already broken because all you get is a plane that flies better backwards. There are two things I have to say to politicians. Number one, nobody gets to vote on education whose kid isn’t in a public school. I’m not interested in somebody voting and then sending his kid to a private school. I’m not interested, because if your kid is in public school then you’re a stakeholder. Number two, I’m just going to speak for what’s required in Education and say what in NCLB fits that and if it doesn’t fit it then it doesn’t belong. I think NCLB is broken and we can fix it and all we’re going to have is a better flying plane that still doesn’t fly very well; at the end of the day it’s a plane in which you crash and burn alive. And we’re crashing. Teachers need help with working with resistant communities to meet NCLB goals. A counselor explained: Help us motivate the unmotivated. Teach us or help us figure out how to get these parents to buy-in to NCLB. Give us the tools, give us the training we need to get to 2013 proficient. We all want it. It’s not that we don’t want it, we d. What would we give for all of our children to be proficient? It’s not that we don’t want it, it’s just that out of all we have done so far, it’s obvious we’re still not doing something correctly. So, come to our school and let us know the areas where we need more help. Was it a good shot idea? Yes, it was a good idea, NCLB was a good thing to get teachers to be highly qualified but the way they went about it wasn’t the ideal way. 258 Teachers need adequate funding to meet educational goals. A Special Education teacher explained in a futuristic address to the new president: Mr. Obama, sir president I think that it’s important to note that there are some positive aspects to this, we have worked our buttocks off and we’re very tired but we’re still willing to plunge on to trudge on the road of happy destiny and I think we should look at what has been laid as a foundation for us to follow, and could you give us some more money so that we can have smaller class sizes when we’re working with these kids because they need more one-to-one attention. I really think it’s unfair to the kids who are willing to sit and learn to put in kids who are not willing to sit and learn, and if we have kids who are so needing of attention then we need a smaller class size. Many teachers want politicians to sever the culture of blaming teachers and schools. A counselor noted: Instead of coming and blaming, let’s take the approach that it isn’t anybody’s fault. But how are we going to fix it? Come into the school. Most of those people have never been in a classroom, and certainly not an urban classroom. They never were a teacher so they really do not know what goes on in the everyday lives of kids. Come see our books, facilities, computers – come see what we need in order for us to give the kids the education they need. Teachers expressed that they wanted politicians to become informed about the realities of urban schools before making sweeping policies like NCLB. Teachers want politicians to visit urban schools that are “in need of improvement” and talk to teachers and students and see what they need to succeed. A Science teacher explained: NCLB has not closed or lessened the achievement gap, it has widened the achievement gap. We need more resources. It is inequitable. It is not fair to the lower-income schools and students who are English Language Learners. The property taxes in our school community are not comparable to those in more affluent areas. I would tell them that the overcrowding at our school is just ridiculous. I would ask them do you know all the facts? Have you been to these schools? Do you know what we cope with everyday? 259 The neighborhoods we teach in often have a lot of violence and trauma. These kids come in with socio-emotional problems. And I am not saying that affluent kids don’t see violence and trauma, I mean there is domestic violence everywhere, but I think there are more gangs here in East Los Angeles. I mean, I grew up in an affluent neighborhood, I did not see the level of violence that I hear about here every day from my students. Our students are more responsible for adult issues and politicians do not understand that. The fact that the classrooms are jam packed and they are not willing to get more teachers or build more schools. I feel like you are setting us up for failure rather than helping us. If you want to help us, give us more money and earmark it for instructional supplies, earmark some for teacher salaries so that we get more salary and also we have more money to pay for more teachers, earmark money for more construction so we can actually bring our urban schools up to code and build more schools. Earmark money for fieldtrips so our kids can get exposed to other communities and cultures. Affluent families, they go to museums, they go to this place and that place, they have parents who by and large have college degrees. If your dad is a biologist they talk to their kids about plants so kids come into the classroom with prior knowledge, a lot of our kids do not. That there is less access to community resources and learning experiences was continually referenced in all focus group interviews. Teachers cite these fundamental differences in access to resources as continually problematic for assuring absolute proficiency for all students. Similarly, an English teacher stressed that politicians should more closely examine community needs when allocating funds and resources: Look at the community, look at the needs of the students, the needs of the parents, the resources we have here at the school and determine what we need. Do we need another social worker at the school? Do we need another counselor? Do we need two or three people working on attendance, and homelessness, and all of the socio-emotional needs the kids have and then make those policies. Give us a place at the table. Give us resources, come talk to us and ask us what we need and then make your decisions. 260 Teachers want politicians making decisions to visit urban schools in need, schools that are deemed “low-performing” by Federal definitions in order to get a clearer picture of the challenges these schools face. A Social Studies teacher explained: And so I think all of this school competition is just making things unhealthy, they have to be more realistic because a lot of these politicians were never teachers. I mean there was one guy who was the former Secretary of Education in California and he wanted to know why schools were failing in California so what he does is he asked the Governor to go into the classroom to see why schools are failing. They took him to the best school in the district, they gave him the best kids and they gave him two aides and then he said he was still having problems teaching. And then he understood why and it’s because no teacher gets the best class, no teacher gets two aides and the best school within the district and even still he was having trouble so that’s what I mean when I say they need to be more realistic. Because some teachers might say we’re pretty bad but I think there are schools a lot worse than here, so they just have to be more realistic. Similarly, a Physical Education teacher expressed that politicians needed to get out into communities: I would tell them they need to get off their butts and come to a school and see what is happening. They don’t come and visit the school and see what we’re learning and what’s happening in here and then to say this is learning. Each teacher has a different way to reach their students and for you to tell us that the bottom line is that we are accountable because someone came up with one standardized test when you could have.. I mean even some adults are not good at test taking, we’re not good at filling in dots, so it’s just ridiculous that they believe that this one test can tell them whether a teacher is succeeding with the students. Teachers also stated that they wanted politicians to consider their voices when implementing policies for urban schools. An English teacher noted: I would tell them that they need to come into communities like ours and talk to the teachers. We are the ones that are teaching the children. Get our opinions. Take our ideas with you. Look at what we go through. See our point of view. Look at our population. Look at the baggage they come into the classroom with. Look at the reality. Spend a day in a classroom. 261 And fully fund it. How can you ask this of me and put my job on the line and you’re not fully funding your own policy? It’s criminal. In numerous instances teachers expressed that they wanted their voices included in the dialogue surrounding NCLB or any educational policy that would affect their day to day instructional activities. Teachers stated that if they were meaningfully included in the decision making processes they could help to better ensure that the interests of students and communities were adequately addressed instead of marginalized. The importance of visiting school sites and talking to teachers was strongly emphasized in all interviews; teachers clarified that politicians should talk to teachers at all levels including those at schools deemed failing instead of the more superficial visits where they are taken to model schools or classrooms. In keeping with these requests the author sought to confirm the findings of this study with teachers to ensure their voices were accurately presented. Reliability Matrix Knodel (1993) noted that a reliability matrix can be used to verify issues or themes among different groups in order to assess the reliability of information collected. The reliability matrix was co-constructed with participants during follow-up member check interviews in order to diminish biased creation of data categories and ensure that the identification of themes and issues discussed in the focus group interviews accurately represents the views of the participants. In qualitative research, member checks are the most crucial technique for establishing credibility (Creswell, 1998; Guba & Lincoln, 1989; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Creswell (1998) noted that member checks involve “…taking data, analyses, interpretations, and conclusions back to the participants so that they can judge the accuracy and credibility of the account” (p. 203). 262 This is an important aspect of qualitative research design because as Guba and Lincoln (1989) noted, “if the evaluator wants to establish that the multiple realities he or she presents are those that the stakeholders have provided, the most certain test is verifying those multiple constructions with those who provided them” (p. 239). Engaging in the coconstruction of the reliability matrix gave the participants the opportunity to correct errors of fact or errors of interpretation, assess the overall adequacy of the interviews, and confirm individual data items and themes. Additionally, the co-construction of the reliability matrix afforded participants with the opportunity to provide the researcher with additional information. Participants were able to confirm and challenge the emergent interpretations of the researcher and this is crucial to ensuring that the voices of urban teachers are accurately represented by this study. Table 20 summarizes the focus group findings. 263 264 265 266 267 268 Summary The findings are that while there are some positive aspects of NCLB implementation, in general urban educators feel that the negative impacts on educational choice and equity, teacher professionalism and autonomy, and the interests of students and communities far outweigh any afforded benefits. Teachers feel that the language of the civil rights movement and social justice movements has been hijacked by the proponents of NCLB while the effect of NCLB implementation has been to increase de facto segregation and highlight the social inequities in urban communities and disparities between schools access to social, academic, technological, and financial resources which compound efforts to narrow the achievement gap. Similarly, Apple (2006) identified NCLB as a “political spectacle” that was couched in progressive language and included a number of progressive-sounding “…proposals that seemingly lead to reforms that are wanted by the least powerful actors in society are instead largely used to gain legitimacy for very different kinds of agendas and policies (p. 90). Urban teachers feel that NCLB is not working in its current configuration and should be significantly revised if it is to remain in place. Specifically, teachers expressed that NCLB must be fully funded, highly qualified administrator provisions need to be developed and enforced, high quality urban teacher preparation programs need to be implemented, standardized testing mechanisms and AYP calculation requirements necessitate significant revision, and the social inequities in American society need to be addressed. In addition, urban teachers strongly support the repeal of NCLB. These are important considerations for policy makers to note as the reauthorization of NCLB is certain to be considered by the 111th Congress. 269 Teachers expressed strong resentments and frustration about NCLB accountability provisions focusing solely on teachers. In addition to the neglect of administrative accountability, the teachers strongly focused on the lack of parent accountability in the forms of parental participation and involvement. Many of the teachers cited as a source of frustration the strong variations in parental participation and involvement and student motivation among Mexican newcomer and Americanized families. Teacher observations of differences between newcomer and “Americanized” Mexican student performance and familial engagement deserve particular elaborative understanding given that the UMS student population is approximately 98% Mexican. The teacher statements about variability in newcomer and Americanized Mexican students are congruent with the findings of Ogbu (1987) who found that generally “minorities who are doing well in school appear to be immigrants or those who regard themselves as immigrants; while the minorities who are not doing well in school appear to be indigenous minorities or subjects of former colonial territories” (p. 258). Ogbu explained that differences in performance resulted because the two groups have different folk models of schooling that encourage different patterns of behavior. Essentially: The nonimmigrant minorities tend to equate schooling with one-way acculturation or assimilation into the dominant group which they consciously and unconsciously resist. Consequently they do not behave in a manner that maximizes academic success. In fact, they are generally characterized by what may be called low-effort syndrome or lack or persevering academic effort. The immigrant minorities, on the other hand, do not equate schooling with acculturation or assimilation and feel freer to adopt behaviors that enhance success. Unlike the nonimmigrants who see schooling as one-way acculturation, the immigrants adopt what may be called an alternation model which permits them to behave one way in the school setting and another when they are at home or in the community. (p. 258) 270 While cultural-ecological framework provided by Ogbu does provide some insight into the dynamics of immigrant and nonimmigrant school engagement, it does not fully illuminate the experience of lower-income Mexican students. Stanton-Salazar (1997) suggested that students of color who succeed develop social ties to institutional agents that can assist them because “success within schools… has never been simply a matter of learning and competently performing technical skills; rather… it has been a matter of learning how to decode the system” (p. 13). Furthermore, Stanton-Salazar noted that, “since schools rarely provide working-class minority students with the necessary training for effective decoding, such children are systematically denied true opportunities for long-term success” (p. 15). The social networking framework suggested by StantonSalazar may provide insight into why some Mexican students experience success while others do not irrespective of their immigrant status. Suárez-Orozco and Suárez-Orozco (1995) described differences between newcomer and Americanized Mexican student motivation and engagement as a reflection of ethno-racial stratification in schools and society at large; they suggested that as Mexican American adolescents become more acculturated and face increased levels of rejection and racial discrimination, they increasingly reject schooling. Valenzuela (1999) suggested that the dual frame of reference Mexican immigrant students possess discourages the correlation of being Mexican with underachievement “…or with social pathologies often ascribed to Mexican Americans and other U.S. minorities…thus, Mexicanidad (or “Mexican-ness”) as a national, rather than ethnic minority identity, contributes to the self-fulfilling expectations evident in both positive school orientations and high academic performance” (p. 14). 271 Similarly, Noguera (2001) cautioned that schools where academic failure is high and low achievement is accepted as the norm operate as a source of negative social capital because such schools isolate themselves from the neighborhoods they serve and “…further the marginalization of the community [their presence contributes to an exodus of families with financial and social resources from poor communities]; eventually such schools serve only those who are unable to escape them” (p. 193). These factors are important to consider in order to properly contextualize the comments made by teachers in this study but ultimately do not ameliorate the isolation and hopelessness felt by many because NCLB continues to demand that all students perform at 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014 irrespective of their home languages, persistent racism in American society, or when students arrived in the country. Teachers featured in this study expressed extreme dissatisfaction with the resulting narrowing of curriculum wrought by NCLB implementation. Teachers reported that the overemphasis on Math and English was resulting in increased student and teacher disengagement. In addition, Crocco and Costigan (2007) suggested that such teacher dissatisfaction with narrowing of the curriculum may exacerbate teacher attrition in schools serving low-income students placing such schools in even greater peril. Teachers in this study continually expressed that they find NCLB provision ignorance or dismissal of socioeconomic contextual realities to be problematic. Schools are affected by the environments in which they are found. Even charter schools often touted as the “fix” to urban public schools by NCLB proponents are constrained by the socioeconomic realities of their communities. 272 For instance, in an examination of three California charter middle schools, Bancroft (2009) found that the socioeconomic context of the schools (such as poverty, gangrelated shootings and assaults, disturbances resulting from family problems, and drug and alcohol use among students) impacted school operations and performance. In addition, Bancroft posed the valid question, “How do teachers engage students who are coping with these social issues and perhaps serious emotional instability on top of low academic skills?” (p. 264). This question highlights the varieties of complexities that urban teachers face in their day to day attempt to bring all students to 100 percent proficiency as NCLB provisions demand. Teachers in this study feel that NCLB implementation has failed with respect to students of color and economically disadvantaged students. As a result of the NCLB implementation overemphasis on test scores, students in low-income schools spend a disproportionate amount of time engaged in test preparation activities (Firestone et al, 2002; Jones & Egley, 2004). Nevertheless, Lee (2006) found that NCLB has not had a significant effect on closing the achievement gap. Kim and Sunderman (2005) found that schools with high percentages of Black and Latino students are more likely to be labeled as failing under federal AYP definitions. Similarly, Stiefel, Schwartz, and Chellman (2008) found that in the state of New York, elementary and middle schools are so highly segregated that more than half are too homogeneous to report test scores for any racial or ethnic subgroups. In addition, Clemmitt (2007) found that the majority of school dropouts are Latino and Black, schools with high percentages of students of color receive less funding, and Black and Latino students are more likely to be concentrated in highpoverty schools than Whites (see also Hursh, 2007a and Darling-Hammond, 2007). 273 The link between poverty and low academic achievement has been well established and many assert that it is a crucial, too often overlooked variable in explaining standardized test score variance (Berliner, 2006; English, 2002). In an examination of 2007-2008 CST test scores in the State of California, Education Trust West (2008) found that Latino, African-American, and low-income eighth graders reach proficiency at less than half the rate of their White, Asian, and more affluent peers; in addition over time the gaps between Latino and White students have remained stagnant in English and Math, gaps between African-American and White students remained stagnant in Math and grew by two points in English, and gaps between low-income students and their more affluent peers grew by five percentage points in English and one point in Math. Teachers in this study emphasized the need for schools serving Latino students to gain a greater understanding of the cultural concept of educación which Valenzuela (1999) described as being in direct opposition to the goals of schooling embedded in standardized education reform efforts. As one math teacher in this study explained: You’re not just teaching them for a test. You are teaching them to be real and genuine, to be human beings, to be kind, polite, considerate, all this other stuff not just always academic. You’re teaching them how to greet people, how to socialize, how to speak with people, how to problem solve, how to work with people. NCLB doesn’t say anything about that stuff. Ultimately, as McNeil (2005) suggested: The chasm between standardization and bien educado cannot be bridged. Standardization structures out the relational experiences of schooling. It is not a matter of adding multicultural content to the questions or making other adjustments to make the testing system more culturally relevant. Standardized systems cannot become culturally relevant without losing the uniformity upon which standardization is predicated… The depersonalization, the lack of respect for the person and the culture, is essential for standardization to be standardizing. (p. 103) 274 In summation, teachers noted that NCLB implementation has resulted in negative effects for educational choice and equity, teacher professionalism and autonomy, and the interests of students and communities that outweigh the few positives that have resulted such as the purging of emergency credentials. In messages to politicians teachers emphasized the need to become more familiar with the socioeconomic realities facing “failing” schools targeted by punitively oriented legislation like NCLB. Teachers want more rigorous, relevant urban teacher preparation programs and PD that addresses the socioeconomic contexts of urban schools while restoring teacher instructional autonomy. In addition, teachers want increased levels of administrative, student, and parent accountability instead of the current one-sided emphasis on teacher accountability. Postlude: NCLB as a Scapegoat A criticism or concern that may arise in the minds of skeptical readers or those removed from the realities of American public urban schools may be whether the teachers featured in this study are merely using NCLB as a scapegoat or attributing more to it than may be deemed reasonable. The neat determination of this question is one deserving of some grappling even if “solving” it is beyond the aim, scope, or interest of the present study. One thing that becomes clear even from a cursory keyword search is that NCLB has deeply affected the lives of educational practitioners and become the concern of educational scholars in a manner that transcends any other educational policy in recent collective memory. From the board room to the lunch room, from classrooms to the homes of individual teachers, NCLB implementation is a topic of prolonged and intense discussion, a source of stress and frustration, and a continual breeder of anxiety for educators and students attempting to meet its various demands. 275 Essentially, via its implementation the law – mere words on a page constructed by the disconnected and remote architects of educational reform, has become a living entity – a vehicle of oppression that teachers and students are engaging with and responding to in observable manners. The negative psychosocioemotional nature of its force is observable in the continued depressed achievement, social, and economic levels of urban students and teachers as well as through the nearly palatable demoralization, bitterness, and anger expressed by teachers, including those featured in this manuscript; determining whether NCLB implementation is the singular generative source of the various malaises described herein is tangential to this endeavor and may indeed be an impossible venture. What is clear is that teachers perceive that NCLB and its implementation is the source of their indisposition and that it has a stranglehold on students and teachers; it a blight on the rich history of American public education deserving of excision. This study affirms that NCLB implementation has become the object of overwhelmingly negative emotions and experiences for urban teachers (see Averill, 1980, 1986 for a discussion of the social construction of emotions— in essence, Averill argued that not only are emotions socially constructed, but furthermore the objects of emotions are dependent on people’s appraisal of what is perceived to be the cause of the feeling). Whether readers fundamentally agree or disagree, teachers perceive and experience NCLB implementation as a deeply disturbing threat to educational choice and equity, their instructional autonomy and professionalism, and the interests of students and communities. While “hard scientists” may reject the relevance of studying these issues without causal analysis or crisply ordered explanations, this Work has a higher mission in concert with planetary efforts to return people to the heart of the human experience. 276 Bourne (2009) outlined how more participatory forms of knowledge such as those demonstrated in this study are contributing to a shift in the status of science and predicted that science will come to be viewed as no longer the sole, but one of many ways of understanding reality “…alongside other equally credible ways that rely on more ‘feminine’ intuitive ways of knowing… [but cautioned that] just as presently occurs in science, replicable observational procedures and interobserver consensus will be required to ensure credibility of these more participatory forms of knowledge” (p. 93). The process of constructing the reliability matrix and its affirmation by 7 participants in addition to the utilization of focus groups as a methodology contributed to those aims. In summation, this study is a presentation of reality as experienced by urban educators that are caught in the grips of an educational reform movement that seeks to legislatively infuse economic and religious fundamentalism into the educational system and other facets of life. As Hawken (2007) explained: These groups act aggressively on our behalf, it is contended, because they know what is best for us. Radical Islamists view those opposing their theocratic vision as infidels who can legitimately be killed. The Christian Right regards non-Christians as needing salvation and redemption that can be delivered by God’s laws, which only it fully understands. Neoconservatives believe that ordinary citizens cannot be entrusted with the reins of power, that a small group of superior individuals should rule over the majority of inferiors, using religion and the perpetual threat of war to create a Potemkin village of populism. Supporters of corporate-led globalization want to impose their market-based rules and precepts on the entire planet, regardless of place, history, or culture, in the belief that economic growth is an unalloyed good, and that it is best accomplished with the minimization or elimination of interference of government. These groups share a fundamental distaste for democracy and seek expediency, not plebiscites. Just as religion creates God in its own image, the pseudopopulists want to create a world that mirrors their simplified imaginings. (p. 17) Ultimately, it is up to educators to reclaim their power and transmute the negativity of NCLB implementation into fire for action, justice, and meaningful educational reform. 277 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of the Study Purpose The purpose of this politically-oriented action research was to raise the critical consciousness of the reader regarding NCLB implementation in urban schools by describing the lived experiences and perceptions of urban educators. This study sought to insert the voices of urban educators into the dialogue surrounding NCLB implementation. Accordingly, this study sought to illuminate the psychosocioemotional fallout of NCLB implementation in urban schools; NCLB is the latest reincarnation of longstanding efforts to reconstruct American public education via educational policy maneuvers that continue to evolve and impact urban schools in a heretofore unforeseen magnitude with the ultimate aim of nationalization, privatization, and corporatization of public education. Procedures Seven focus group interviews were held at UMS in 2008-2009. A total of 33 participants from various departments were included in this study which was grounded in Applean Critical Education Theory and Freirean Liberatory Education Theory. The focus groups were departmentalized and led by the researcher, a long time faculty member at the site. Each focus group interview was approximately 90-120 minutes in length. The researcher developed a matrix of issues and themes thought to be representative themes spanning the multiple focus group interviews. 278 The principles of thick description embraced by interpretive interactionism were used in describing the research site, participants, and in reporting the findings. Creswell (1998) noted that thick description allows the reader to make decisions regarding transferability; in essence, “with such detailed description, the researcher enables readers to transfer information to other settings and to determine whether findings can be transferred because of shared characteristics” (p. 203). Seven follow-up member check interviews were held wherein one member from each focus group interview met with the researcher to discuss and co-construct the reliability matrix (see Table 20). The reliability matrix helped the researcher ensure that the viewpoints of the participants were accurately presented in the study findings. Research Questions The broad research question guiding this study was: How has NCLB implementation affected the daily life of (a) classroom teachers, (b) out-of-the-classroom teachers, and (c) administrators at an urban middle school (e.g. pedagogically, socioemotionally, professionally, curricularly, ad infinitum)? In addition, it was anticipated that the experiences of urban educators would provide insight into effects on communities and students. Limitations and Generalizability Because this study sought to present and describe teacher experiences and perceptions about how NCLB implementation has affected the daily lives of urban educators and administrators, participant screens were developed to ensure that participants could provide a reflective analysis based on observed trends. 279 For this reason, UMS students and parents were not included in the research pool because it was unclear whether they would possess the reflective organizational schema to identify instructional trends or describe how NCLB implementation has impacted the dayto-day instructional and organizational experiences at UMS. While this research yields significant data related to how urban educators and administrators are coping with NCLB implementation, the voices of students and parents are needed to extend this dialogue; surely students and parents can illuminate the motivational and familial effects that the emphasis on high-stakes testing instead of lifelong learning has had on their families. It is hoped that this study will inspire others to conduct research in those critical areas in order to even further raise the critical consciousness of educational policymakers. Denzin (2005) noted that “interpretive interactionism assumes that the languages of ordinary people can be used to explicate their experiences” and furthermore that while the formulation of causal propositions that can be generalized to non-observed populations is a goal of traditionalist research methods, generalization is rejected as a goal of interpretivist research (p. 46). Instead, as outlined by Lincoln and Guba (1985) the goal of qualitative research is transferability. Lincoln and Guba define transferability as a parallel concept to generalizability whereby the burden of proof for claimed transferability rests on the receiver rather than the inquirer. Guba and Lincoln (1989) explained: The object of the game in making transferability judgments is to… provide an extensive and careful description of the time, the place, the context, and the culture… to provide as complete a data base as humanly possible in order to facilitate transferability judgments on the part of other who may wish to apply the study to their own situations (or situations in which they have an interest). (p. 242) 280 The principles of transferability are what have guided the thick description of the research site and participants so that readers may determine for themselves whether the experiences of urban educators contained in this manuscript are transferable to their institutions or personal experiences. Conclusions and Summary of Focus Group Findings Educational Choice and Equity Findings Urban teachers feel that NCLB was political posturing at the expense of urban schools. Furthermore, they feel it was another failed Bush policy that is not working in its current configuration. Urban teachers expressed that NCLB has done more harm than good and that it requires significant restructuring or revision if it is to be reauthorized; urban teachers strongly support the repeal of NCLB. Teachers feel that NCLB has promoted failure as the norm in effort to eliminate public education and threats of restructuring are empty. Teachers feel accountability has solely focused on teachers and accountability is not evenly shared among all stakeholders. Teachers report that there is a lack of administrative accountability and a need to institute highly qualified administrator provisions. Teachers note that increased paraprofessional requirements have done more harm than good and that lack of parent accountability and involvement continues to hamper implementation. In general parents lack understanding about NCLB requirements and express a need for parenting skills courses. Finally, student accountability was found to be significantly hampered by the practice of social promotion. Teacher and Professional Autonomy Findings Teachers feel that education continues to be a low priority for citizens and policymakers and that the prestige of teaching as a profession has diminished. 281 While teachers praised the purging of emergency credentials resulting from NCLB implementation, they noted that was one of the few positives. Teachers report that high quality urban teacher preparation programs are needed and that the BTSA program is inadequate to meet current training needs; in addition there is a need to differentiate PD. Teachers related that NCLB implementation has intensified their commitment to preserving urban education. Teachers are ambivalent about improved teacher quality under NCLB and hold competing definitions of highly qualified teachers. Teachers note that continued administrative out-of-field teacher assignments result in the unfair labeling of teachers as not highly qualified and feel that NCLB compliance letters sent home to parents are demeaning to teachers. Teachers are polarized about the benefits of the Standards. Teachers feel that district responses to NCLB requirements are inadequate and are ambivalent about the benefits of Pacing Plans and Periodic Assessments, both of which are reported to limit opportunities for reteaching and holistic education. Teachers also feel that the atmosphere produced by NCLB implementation created an intense pressure to teach to the test. Interests of Students and Communities Findings Teachers expressed that national benchmarks fail to address local contexts and instructional needs. Teachers report that the lack of funding from the Federal government and State, along with the misallocation of funds at the school site result in a lack of adequate resources for NCLB implementation. Teachers expressed that the preferential funding of charter schools was a disappointment. Teachers report that large class sizes, disparities in schools access to resources, ignorance of social inequities, and increased de facto segregation are aspects that support the repeal of NCLB. 282 Teachers note that subjects other than English and Math are marginalized and that deficiencies in elementary school curriculum are resulting in decreased higher order thinking skills, problem solving skills, and creativity among incoming students. Teachers note that since NCLB implementation electives and alternative skills programs have disappeared. In addition, teachers expressed that student motivation to learn has been stifled and that the needs of Gifted, Special Education, and ELL students are being neglected. Teachers expressed that 100 percent proficiency is unrealistic and were dismayed by the defeatist Federal responses to test score gains. In addition they note the CSTs are not a valid measure of learning progress, test results lack relevancy because they are so delayed, and there is a need to implement a pre- and post- test in order to measure learning progress. Finally, teachers feel that politicians need to become informed about the realities of urban schools and communities before implementing such sweeping policies as those included in NCLB. Reauthorization Considerations The reauthorization of NCLB as part of ESEA will be considered by the 111th Congress under the leadership of 44th president Barack Hussein Obama. Amer and Manning (2008) noted that the 111th Congress is composed of 262 Democrats and 178 Republicans whose average age is 58.2 years and dominant professions include public service/politics, business and law. The dominant religious affiliation is Protestant and Roman Catholics represent the largest religious denomination. Additionally, Amer and Manning noted that the 111th Congress is comprised of a record number of 95 women. 283 Amer and Manning noted that the 111th Congress includes 41 African American members, 31 Hispanic or Latino members, eleven Asian or Native Hawaiian/other Pacific Islander members, and one American Indian (Native American) member. Such a composition may seem to bode well on the surface for restoring American education, but what is unknown is how many members of the 111th Congress have already pledged their allegiance to sell American public schools down the river to corporate and military interests that are deeply entrenched in the political mechanisms on Capitol Hill and have been steadily working towards the goal of privatization since the 1980s. Of particularly disheartening news was the selection President Obama made for Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan; who is a basketball buddy from Chicago and like all Secretaries of Education appointed since the George H.W. Bush administration (save Rod Paige) holds no substantial experiential background teaching in K-12 public schools or advanced degrees in Education. Those lauding his selection are cause for some concern to those committed to preserving and genuinely improving American public schools. For example, Lamar Alexander (2009), Secretary of Education during the George H.W. Bush administration, noted: Among several outstanding nominations made by [President] Obama, I believe Arne Duncan is the best… I look forward to working with him to reduce the over-regulation of higher education, restore flexibility to State and local leaders so they can improve schools, increase the number and quality of charter schools, and find innovative ways to pay teachers more for teaching well. (¶ 2) Thus, the priorities of Lamar Alexander to privatize American public schools and institute merit pay remain unchanged from the time he penned America 2000 in 1991; that he believes he has an ally in Mr. Duncan towards those aims is disconcerting. 284 In addition, Harold McGraw III, chairman of the BRT and deeply rooted in the McGrawHill Company which has reaped massive fiduciary benefits as a result of the “crisis” in American schools, authorized the release of the following statement commemorating the appointment of Duncan: Business Roundtable member CEOs congratulate [President] Obama on the selection of Arne Duncan as the next Secretary of Education. The selection signals that the Obama administration believes that aggressive efforts are needed to raise U.S. student achievement. Mr. Duncan has a strong record of working with the business community to improve schools in Chicago. Business Roundtable has long supported efforts to improve the performance of the education system and raise student achievement in the U.S. and looks forward to working with [Secretary of Education] Duncan to improve American education. (¶ 2) As outlined in Chapter One of this manuscript, the BRT has been a motivating factor and longstanding key strategists in privatization of American public school efforts since their partnerships with George H.W. Bush became more public in the late 1980s; it was the BRT and National Governors Association who pushed the America 2000 agenda. Arne Duncan is best known for his Renaissance 2010 reform efforts in Chicago public schools that seek to apply market-based models to American public schools, eliminate teacher unions, close down public schools that are “failing” under NCLB definitions and reopen them as charter schools or military academies (see Libby, 2008 and Saltman, 2007, chap. 3 for additional information on Renaissance 2010). Giroux and Saltman (2008) noted that “Chicago’s 2010 plan targets 15 percent of the city district’s alleged underachieving schools in order to dismantle them and open 100 new experimental schools in areas slated for gentrification” (¶ 3). 285 Similarly, Street (2008) outlined that “privatization, union busting, teacher-blaming, military schooling, and the rollback of community input on school decisions” were hallmarks of Renaissance 2010 under the leadership of Mr. Duncan (¶ 4). It remains to be discovered how these corporate unions which employ the highflying words of the social justice movement in strange displays of Orwellian doublespeak will impact decisions Duncan makes regarding the support of reauthorizing NCLB. That the Obama-Biden education agenda expresses support for investing in middle school intervention strategies, transitional bilingual education programs, and reforming NCLB is promising (The White House, 2009). Nevertheless, it is important to consider the effectiveness of NCLB and some of the options the 111th Congress and DOE may consider regarding strengthening, modifying, or radically dismantling NCLB. Is it Effective? In his inaugural address, President Obama (2009) outlined his vision for the guiding principles of governmental decision making: The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works… Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end. And those of us who manage the public’s dollars will be held to account—to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day—because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government. With the guidelines provided by President Obama it is important to consider if NCLB has been effective. Results of the 40th Phi Delta Kappan/Gallup Poll (2008) found support for NCLB waning with fewer than 2 of 10 Americans believing it should be continued without significant changes; this is congruent with the findings of the present study. 286 Notwithstanding public opinion, the achievement data speaks for itself. While USDE (2009a) celebrated the achievement gains under NCLB, little evidence was provided to support the assertions that all students are achieving or making adequate progress towards meeting the 100 percent proficiency goals of 2014. In fact, comparisons of NAEP and State test scores by Lee (2006) found that NCLB did not significantly reduce the achievement gap. In a meta-analysis of test scores at all levels, CEP (2007a) concluded that test scores had risen but could not be attributed to NCLB and their conclusion that achievement gaps were narrowing did not include trends for students with disabilities or ELL students because they were deemed “a moving target” (p. 18). However, at the middle school level gaps are widening for students of color, economically disadvantaged, and ELL students. For example, Education Trust West (2008) found California Latino, African-American, and low-income middle school kids reach proficiency at less than half the rate of their White, Asian, and more affluent peers. The disparities between the test scores of ELL students and their peers are noteworthy. National and California ELL student proficiency rates remain low. The Quality Counts report from Editorial Projects in Education (2009) found wide disparities between ELL and non-ELL performance on State and NAEP tests. Similarly, Fry (2007) noted that 51% of eighth grade ELL students were behind Whites in Reading and Math NAEP scores. In addition, Abedi and Dietel (2004) analyzed the persistent gaps between ELL students and their peers. Finally, conservative estimates predict that the majority of States will fail to meet the 100 percent proficiency goals of 2013-2014 (Bryant et al., 2008). 287 In addition to the lack of substantial test score gains and significant narrowing of the achievement gap, NCLB implementation has resulted in increased instances of de facto segregation. The University of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights (2005) found that “nationally, about 50 percent of all Black and Latino students attend schools in which 75 percent or more of the students are low-income, as measured by eligibility for free and reduced priced lunch [and] only 5 percent of White students do” (p. 9). Kim and Sunderman (2005) found that schools with high percentages of Black and Latino students are more likely to be labeled as failing under federal AYP definitions. In addition, Clemmitt (2007) found that the majority of school dropouts are Hispanic and Black, schools with high percentages of students of color receive less funding, and Black and Hispanic students are more likely to be concentrated in high-poverty schools than White students (see also Hursh, 2007a and Darling-Hammond, 2007). In summary, if the goal was to lower teacher and student morale and generate a crisis in order to privatize, corporatize, and militarize urban public schools then NCLB implementation has been wildly effective. However, if the goal was to improve American public education, make meaningful strides towards closing the achievement gap, produce global citizens with 21st century skill levels, and promote equity and excellence in American schools then NCLB implementation has fallen devastatingly short on all accounts. Strengthening NCLB Proponents of strengthening NCLB suggest that staying the course towards 100 percent proficiency by 2013-2014 accompanied by just a few changes to strengthen the Act will improve NCLB implementation. 288 USDE (2007) suggested that continued support of flexibility for innovation and improvement such as the “growth models” and “differentiated accountability” pilot programs and implementation of Uniform Graduation Rate requirements were some ways to strengthen NCLB implementation. In addition, USDE (2009a) suggested stronger support of charter schools, support of student choice/transfer options, greater data transparency, increased support for informing parents and students of SES options, and more grants for technological innovations were ways to strengthen NCLB. Modifying NCLB Others supporters suggest that NCLB needs to be significantly modified if it is to be successfully reauthorized. In addition to the suggestions outlined by USDE, The Council of Chief State School Officers (2007) suggested amending section 1116 to provide states with greater ability to differentiate consequences, amend section 1111 to permit states to use multiple assessments, and to amend section 1111 to properly include students with disabilities and ELL students. All of these suggestions have been addressed by USDE final rules to date. Many organizations have become united in their efforts to significantly modify NCLB. For example, as of 2008, 149 national education, citizens, civil rights, children’s, and disability organizations had signed onto a joint organizational statement on NCLB modifications calling for the replacement of the law’s “arbitrary proficiency targets” and a significant revisions to the sanctions contained in the law among other changes (Forum on Educational Accountability, 2004). Several recommendations have been provided regarding modifying NCLB accountability provisions. 289 Some have focused on the need for more equal distribution of accountability responsibilities. For example, Brown (2006) suggested that properly addressing the parent accountability “gap” contained in the law would result in a closing of the achievement gap as well as a more equitable sharing of the weight of responsibility for children’s education between schools and parents. Others have focused on the need for more oversight of the various subprograms currently running amok in urban schools. For example, CEP (2007d) suggested establishing accountability requirements for providers of SES in order to better evaluate their effectiveness at increasing student achievement. Several recommendations have been made with respect to modifying the standards and testing requirements contained in NCLB. The Forum on Educational Accountability (2007) suggested a complete overhaul of NCLB assessment and accountability requirements that included a significant return of responsibility for such items to states and local agencies. At the other end of the spectrum, Riddle (2007) suggested that Congress consider among other issues whether standards-based assessments should be expanded to include additional subjects or grade levels. In addition, Riddle suggested that Congress consider whether AYP requirements are appropriately focused on improving education for disadvantaged students, whether PI sanctions had been effectively implemented or significantly improved student achievement, and whether ESEA programs should be funded at levels closer to the maximum authorized amounts. Kahlenberg (2008) suggested that Congress fully fund NCLB, work towards more uniform National Standards and coherence in State testing and accountability, and provide more options for low-income students to transfer to highquality middle-class suburban public schools including ones outside of their own district. 290 Similarly, while making no direct mention of NCLB the latest efforts of the National Governors Association (2008) recommend that state standards are upgraded by adopting a “common core of internationally benchmarked standards in math and language arts for grades K-12 to ensure that students are equipped with the necessary knowledge and skills to be globally competitive” (p. 24) . Several recommendations have been made with respect to the AYP growth targets. The Education Commission of the States (2004) suggested ensuring the performance growth of all students, not just low-performing students, reassessing AYP to follow the progress of cohorts of students over time, and reallocating resources to build State and local capacity for assisting schools in need of improvement. Similarly, CEP (2007d) suggested designating schools as in need of improvement only when the same subgroup of students fails to meet AYP targets for two or more years, weighing the English language proficiency and academic content assessment results for students learning English, and encouraging states to give adequate emphasis to Art and Music. Additionally, CEP recommended providing assistance to state to develop high quality assessments for students with disabilities and ELL students, and providing additional federal funding to state education agencies to help them effectively carry out NCLB. Similarly, Linn (2005) suggested setting realistic performance targets for AYP safe harbor provisions and annual performance targets and adjusting AYP to consider growth in achievement not just comparison to a fixed target. The Commission on No Child Left Behind (2007) among others suggested the inclusion of Science assessments in AYP calculations, development of National Standards for content areas, as well as requirements for Highly Effective Principals be included in reauthorization revisions. 291 The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (2008) suggested significant revisions of the highly qualified teacher provisions to include not only subject matter competency but content knowledge, cultural awareness, pedagogical understanding, and effective teaching dispositions. Finally, NEA (2006) supports the reauthorization of NCLB and outlined several suggestions for modifying the reauthorization of ESEA including accountability that rewards success and supports educators to help students learn, smaller class sizes to improve student achievement, quality educators in every classroom and school, fully funding ESEA programs at their authorized levels, and the promotion of programs and resources that support active and engaged parents, families, and communities. In addition, NEA (2009) has tracked over 145 bills that have been introduced by members of Congress to improve NCLB. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Perhaps the most significant modification suggested to NCLB was contained in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) signed into law by President Obama during his first month in office. In addition to providing nearly $80 billion for bailing out states, colleges, and schools facing unprecedented shortfalls and $20 billion in hunger assistance (food stamps, food banks, meals programs for seniors, and free school lunch programs), ARRA makes available through September 30, 2010, an unprecedented $13 billion in grants for carrying out Title I of the ESEA of 1965. ARRA apportioned $5.5 billion targeted to states, $5.5 billion for education finance incentives, and $2 billion for school improvement; in essence, NCLB would be fully funded for the first time since its implementation. 292 In addition, ARRA stipulated that no less than 15% of the funds issued in the proposed grants must be used to support students in preschool programs at targeted assistance schools and preschool programs in general. While the funding amounts proposed by ARRA represent the most profound modification to NCLB to date and constitute the largest bailouts to stabilize states in the Nation’s history, California will still need to layoff teachers in 2009-2010 and LAUSD has notified schools that they will still need to return administrators to classroom teaching positions, decentralize decision making at school sites, and increase class sizes in 20092010 (LAUSD, 2009a). Hence, even the unprecedented infusion of funds promised by ARRA will not mitigate the financial crisis LAUSD is embroiled in. Ultimately, unless the $13 billion in proposed NCLB funds is redirected and distributed directly to low-income families to help improve their quality of life and bridge the massive socioeconomic gaps prevalent in society, the money is as well spent as the EESA funds of George W. Bush which thus far have only served the purpose of further lining the pockets of corporate executives. The economic divide in America is real, and until we address that reality, we will continue to see limited achievement gains. Ultimately, as Noguera (2001) noted: My own experience in working with urban schools leads me to believe that any serious policy for improving urban schools must address the educational issues in concert with a broad array of social issues such as poverty, joblessness, and the lack of social services… such an approach has not been attempted since the Great Society programs of the 1960s… and under the present paradigm of neoliberalism, there is little likelihood that such a comprehensive effort will be launched again or in the near future. (p. 197) Until we address the persistent economic gaps that exist in American society and are currently seemingly accepted by most as the norm, our Nation will continue to lag behind other countries in terms of innovation and academic achievement. 293 Radically Dismantling NCLB Many of those suggesting modifications of the law note that while they do not support several of the changes implemented under NCLB including excessive testing provisions, they would not want to risk repealing the law because the underlying principles of ESEA which they support such as equality for all, programs for needy students, after school programs, and teacher quality, may come under fire. However, others suggest that this inaction is exactly what the architects of NCLB intended through the hijacking of social justice language towards the aims of dismantling and privatizing American public schools. Yet still others argue that the ends do not justify the means when it comes to NCLB and assert that it has done more harm than good for American schools irrespective of the goals of ESEA prior to the harmful modifications made to it by NCLB. For example, McCluskey and Coulson (2007) suggested that because the Federal government has no proper role in American education beyond enforcing civil rights laws and because NCLB has failed to meet its stated expectations, it should be phased out so that states can be genuinely encouraged to develop effective policies based on parental choice, autonomy, and competition. Others such as Houston (2007), call for the dismantling of NCLB and an end to the “hard bigotry of inadequate resources”; instead of ignoring the realities of poverty and the inequities between school districts and relying on fear and coercion, address the issues of poverty in America which will continue to stifle achievement and innovation. Hursh (2007b) suggested that “NCLB shifts the blame for increasing economic inequality away from the decisions made by corporations and politicians and on to the education system” (p. 306). 294 Garda (2007) outlined how the “choice” provisions in NCLB work to create separate and unequal schools and comments made by teachers featured in this study confirm the manifestation of such highly segregated realities in urban schools resulting from NCLB implementation. As one teacher noted, “You know the White kids refuse to come here... I mean even in terms of Chinese and Koreans, we used to have more people here but now they don’t want to come here.” Rothstein (2008) suggested that instead of fixing NCLB which suggests that teachers can “wipe out socioeconomic differences among children simply by trying harder” the Obama administration should instead focus on the real issue of narrowing fiscal disparities (p. 53). Similarly Anyon (2008) and Biddle (2008) warned President Obama that American education test-based reforms will continue to falter until social inequities are adequately addressed and suggested that such reforms are not enough to address the “massive scope of youth poverty in our country and its iron-fisted ties with educational failure” (p. 9). Implications and Recommendations While the Reauthorization Considerations section outlined numerous suggestions individuals and organizations have provided for strengthening, modifying, or radically dismantling NCLB, there are several recommendations for urban schools, districts, parents, students, educators, and policy makers to consider. These recommendations are structured so that they are independent of NCLB reauthorization, restructuring, or repeal. They include a discussion of what these various constituencies can do in order to restore a more humanistic approach to urban education in order to navigate or transform the educational climate resulting from NCLB implementation. 295 Implications and Recommendations for Urban Schools and Districts The role of schools in society is changing. Apple (1982/1995) suggested that education is no longer seen as a social alliance between teachers, students of color, community activists, progressive legislators and government officials seeking to expand educational opportunities and social-democratic policies for schools. Instead, a new alliance between business and the New Right along with “particular factions of the management oriented new middle class” whose aims are to influence education in order to increase our international competitiveness, profit, and discipline in order to usher in a return to a romanticized past of the “ideal” home, family and school (p. 13). Similarly, Sacks (2001) noted: Schools are fast becoming quasi-profit centers not unlike a publicly-held corporation accountable to shareholders for quarterly profits and returns on the New York Stock Exchange. But instead of shareholders demanding maximum sales and net profits, states are holding schools accountable for maximizing growth in test scores. (p. 118) In a similar vein, some suggest that quasi-markets or mixed economies of public schools backed by private initiatives will increase school quality (Minow, 2003; Vandenberghe, 1999). Cooper and Randall (2008) outlined that what they suggest is a healthy fear for survival surrounds American schools in every arena because an expanded number of schooling formats are competing for resources as a result of NCLB school restructuring efforts particularly in urban areas: In U.S. education , we now have a three-sector market for education: (a) the public system, with 87% of children attending public schools; (b) another 11% of pupils attending private schools; and (c) the recent development of a third sector (providing competition to both of the aforementioned sectors), including voucher-using and charter school students comprising 2% of the students so far. (p. 218) 296 Cooper and Randall outlined that while Catholic private school enrollment is declining, other private schools are growing and the growth of religious public and private charter schools is exploding, blurring the lines separating church and state and creating a “privatized ‘system’ within the public school system as well as within the private school sector” (p. 219). Apple (2006) explained that neoliberal school choice programs such as vouchers and charter schools are essential to the Christian right’s longstanding battles with “godless” secular public schools (see also Lugg, 2000 for a detailed discussion of the Christian Right’s attempts to re-Christianize or deinstitutionalize American public schools through politicized theological efforts). Apple noted: As a group that sees itself as being victimized by current laws and the educational system, many authoritarian populists are convinced that their threatened cultural identity can only be maintained through the use of public money to establish and expand the rights of parents to school their children in any manner they see fit…. for the majority of conservative Christians [this] would enable the cultural survival of their most deeply held beliefs and would ensure that their children adhere to these beliefs. I do not use the term “survival” lightly. In the minds of many of these parents, that is what is at stake, not only in terms of the beliefs and culture that their children are to be taught but in terms of what may happen to the nation and the world given the threat of godlessness and evil. (p. 161) Thus, the religious charter school movement diverts public funds towards the aim of preserving the cultural interests of religious factions. It is interesting to note the dichotomous nature of this merging of public and private spheres such religious factions view public intrusion into their private lives as a negative except for when it mirrors their own evangelical beliefs. So, not only are public schools being supplanted by charter schools and voucher systems, religious charter schools are diverting public funds to support private, evangelical agendas. 297 Urban schools need to begin to advocate for a restoration of the separation of church and state in education. In addition, urban schools and districts need to demand greater fiscal responsibility in relation to urban public schools generally. Urban schools and districts can first begin to demand greater fiscal responsibility and advocate for their students by petitioning State Educational Agencies to challenge the unjust expectations contained in the unfunded NCLB mandates as even the additional funds proposed by ARRA will not provide immediate relief to the current hostile environment NCLB has produced in urban schools. With looming fiscal crises, must urban districts continue to be subjugated to unrealistic expectations for which they are not provided appropriate resources? Urban school district leaders must demand relief for the students and communities that are being negatively affected by NCLB implementation. In addition to these fundamental responsibilities, there are several recommendations for urban schools and districts. First, urban schools need to help facilitate the skills needed for academic success in lower income students by explicitly teaching skills required for academic success. Schools can make the decision to serve communities instead of alienate them through their curricular offerings. Mehan, Villanueva, Hubbard, and Lintz (1996) found that programs such as AVID provide social scaffolding to “explicitly teach aspects of the implicit culture of the classroom and the hidden curriculum of the school” (p. 81) to help low achieving Mexican and Black adolescents obtain the skills required for academic success and social mobility. Urban districts should seriously consider drastically expanding AVID programs and others like it in order to teach students the hidden curriculum of schools. By explicitly teaching these elements to students we will equip them with the tools they need for academic and life success. 298 Second, schools and districts need to provide more effective urban teacher preparation and professional development. Argyris and Schön (1974) noted that organizations that focus on meaningful learning work more efficiently, readily adapt to change, detect and correct errors, and continually work to improve their effectiveness (see Johnson & Bush, 2005 for an explication of the whole-school inquiry process which is a model for school-level critical dialogue and transformation).The inadequacy of teacher training programs to prepare teachers to meet the needs of low-income children in urban environments has been outlined by numerous researchers (Darling-Hammond, Holtzman, Gatlin, & Heilig, 2005; Delpit, 1995; Hilliard, 1991; Kozol, 2005; LadsonBillings, 2001; Zeichner, 2003). Talbert-Johnson (2006) noted that NCLB mandated teacher training programs ineffectively prepare urban teachers for service and that furthermore it is imperative that teachers in urban schools “…get an opportunity to study and critique the knowledge base related to the unique instructional needs of culturally diverse students. Reform initiatives in teacher preparation must ensure the preparation of teachers for diverse populations in urban schools” (p. 151). Teacher mentorship programs need to be expanded and student teaching requirements deserve significant extension. As one teacher noted, “everything I learned from my teacher training program was in student teaching. Everything I have learned is right now in my classroom.” Urban teacher education programs will also benefit from greater inclusion of Critical Education and Liberatory Education theories that emphasize linking theory to praxis and actually address the complexities of teaching in an urban environment (see Morrow & Torres, 2002 for a discussion of linking Critical Education theories to praxis). 299 Third, districts need to set highly qualified administrator criteria and employ that criteria in their hiring practices so that urban schools can have effective, stable leadership. The challenges facing urban administrators require extensive experiential and theoretical foundations. Schoen and Fusarelli (2008) warned that the isomorphic behavioral responses to NCLB conflict with the pedagogical skills, knowledge, and leadership needed for 21st century schools. In a similar vein, Reitzug, West, and Angel (2008) envisioned four expressions of instructional leadership principals could employ. Some researchers suggest that districts need to pay more attention to the personal characteristics of teachers and administrators they employ. For instance, Buntrock (2008) found that successful principals in high-poverty urban schools that meet AYP goals demonstrate higher levels of emotional intelligence than principals at schools that fail to meet AYP; specifically, successful urban principals have greater abilities to perceive emotions and manage emotions. Too often, urban administrators are those who fled the classroom with limited teaching experience; at UMS, none of the administration held substantive experience teaching at middle schools. Expertise research continually suggests that in a variety of domains, deliberate extensive practice is required for worldclass performance; a 10-year rule is suggested as the amount of time required to reach levels of expertise (Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch-Romer, 1993; Weisberg, 2006). Perhaps 10 years of teaching service should be established as the minimum for those seeking administrative positions. Urban administrators also need to possess extensive experience teaching at the grade levels they administer; one cannot function as an instructional leader when an experiential foundation from which to provide that support is lacking. 300 Urban administrators will also benefit from expanded mentorship opportunities provided by newly retired, experienced administrators and ongoing professional development with an emphasis on pedagogical understanding, a variety of teaching and learning modalities, emotional intelligence, transformational leadership, communication skills, and managerial skills. Fourth, schools and districts need to monitor and address instances of segregation related to NCLB school choice provisions whose benefits to students remain unclear (see Lubienski, Weitzel, & Lubienski, 2009 for a discussion of the lack of consensus regarding school choice and achievement). School choice has been critiqued by numerous authors for promoting racial and economic stratification (Bastian, 1992; Moore, 1990; Pearson, 1993). In addition, numerous authors have outlined how school choice in reference to charter schools and/or vouchers have promoted increased instances of racial segregation (Garcia, 2008; Wamba & Ascher, 2003; Wayson, 1999) and/or worked to keep out ELL and disabled students (Lacireno-Paquet, Holyoke, Moser, & Henig, 2002). In addition, Bischoff (2008) found that district fragmentation increased multiracial segregation between districts. Stiefel, Schwartz, and Chellman (2007) found that schools were so highly segregated and homogeneous they were unable to report test scores for any racial or ethnic subgroups. Surely these are all trends that schools and Districts can monitor without too much financial strain because student demographics are already part of accountability systems currently in place. Districts and schools should work to ensure that instances of racial segregation are confronted and addressed and develop reintegration policies and processes as needed in order to maintain equity. 301 Finally, schools need to end the practice of “banking” education promoted by NCLB policies. Freire (1970/2007) explained: It is not our role to speak to people about our view of the world, nor attempt to impose that view on them, but rather to dialogue with the people about their view and ours. We must realize that their view of the world, manifested variously in their action, reflects their situation in the world. Educational and political action which is not critically aware of this situation runs the risk of “banking” or preaching in the desert. (p. 96) More effective student-centered approaches that emphasize dialogue, critical thought, problem solving, and innovation instead of test preparation and 100 percent proficiency are needed to reverse the rising tide of mediocrity that NCLB has ironically produced in urban schools. Students are becoming more proficient at bubbling in scantrons, but increasingly lack the ability to think critically about our world or become inspired to act in positive ways to change it. Rodríguez and Conchas (2009) suggested that schoolcommunity bridging can help expand social capital, provide safe spaces for students to interact in positive, meaningful manners at school (through after school enrichment, oneto-one meetings with caseworkers, etc.), provide incentive structures that get students excited about school, and facilitate institutional advocacy. Specifically, Rodríguez and Conchas suggested that caseworker assignments in urban middle schools can help students understand that an adult cares about their success leading to transformation of students’ dispositions in school and beyond. Implications and Recommendations for Urban Parents and Students The time has now come for urban parents to mobilize and for students to protest the accountability measures that increasingly limit opportunities for Black and Latino students. 302 For example, perhaps grassroots organizing will help build resistance to the draconian graduation requirements implemented in tandem with NCLB in the State of California. The importance of parent involvement cannot be understated; early examinations of American school inequalities identified family involvement as the most predictive indicator of student achievement and attributed academic success to differences between families as opposed to differences between schools (Coleman et al., 1966). Parents are a crucial element in supporting school efforts to increase student achievement. Accordingly, there are several recommendations for urban parents and students particularly in schools serving large numbers of Latino students. First, parents need to demand real school choice, not the illusion propagated by NCLB. Parents still do not have genuine choices when the only options are to transfer to schools that are also failing or highly segregated (Kahlenberg, 2008; Neild, 2005). Real school choice means that students will be able to make inter-District transfers and provided with the transportation and economic and means to do so. This also means that greater oversight will be provided so that schools are not permitted to keep Latino and Black students out of their ranks through a variety of loopholes. Second, parents need to demand that schools make real changes in governance whereby the voices and values of the community are represented, not whereby one parent volunteer signs off on NCLB compliance documents. In the current conceptions, one or two parents “represent” thousands and parent involvement is characterized by signing off on NCLB mandated school improvement plans that are hastily drafted by school officials with little parent input beyond an occasional meeting where parents are permitted to voice their concerns about the school site. 303 Once parents begin to organize and demand a greater place at the table, their voices will be heard. This will bring about fundamental changes to urban school environments because as Noguera (2001) noted, “the degree to which poor parents are organized to exert influence and control over schools can be a decisive variable that determines whether schools serve as a source of positive or negative social capital” (p. 197). Finally, parents need to demand the restoration of bilingual education programs and an end to the xenophobic, racist, unrealistic requirements contained in NCLB related to English language proficiency (namely that students are expected to become completely proficient in English after three years of enrollment in school). Valenzuela (1999) discussed that while the “no Spanish” rules that epitomized U.S.-Mexican schooling in the 1970s have been abolished, “…Mexican youth continue to be subjected on a daily basis to subtle, negative messages that undermine the worth of their unique culture and history” (p. 172); essentially, “their fluency in Spanish is construed as a ‘barrier’ that needs to be overcome” (p. 173). The attacks on bilingual education violate basic human rights. Even Articles 29 and 30 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) recognize that children have the right to enjoy their own culture and use their own language. Martínez (2006) noted that bilingualism is the cornerstone of the Mexican American language experience. Acuña (1995) argued that because Mexicans are the largest immigrant group in America and subsequently the largest group of participants in bilingual programs, attacks on bilingual education are attacks on Mexican people in general (see also Perez Huber, Lopez, Malagon, Velez, & Solorzano, 2008). Shannon and Escamilla (1999) noted “the reproduction of society’s values and beliefs about Mexican immigrants in schools allows educators to act in negative ways with impunity” (p. 366). 304 Accordingly, it is imperative that parents and communities organize in order to address the deep seated racism contained in legislative resistance to bilingual education. McGroarty (2002) suggested that promoting support for language policies that include instead of exclude bilingual education requires “language minority” communities to develop a strong electoral presence mobilized around language-in-education issues. In addition McGroarty suggested that those who advocate bilingual instruction need to be able to articulate its goals and accomplishments accurately and persuasively for fellow educators, the public, and policy makers. Parent organizations can begin to register voters in the community and provide information about the benefits of bilingual education in order to mobilize legislative action. Implications and Recommendations for Urban Educators Urban educators can provide organized resistance to the negative social capital mechanisms manifested by NCLB implementation. One primary responsibility educators in this regard involves more actively questioning the nature of schooling. Apple (1979/2004) suggested that unless teachers and policy makers begin to question the hidden curriculum of schooling (or “tacit teaching to students of norms, values, and dispositions that goes on simply by their living in and coping with the institutional expectations and routines of school day in and day out for a number of years”), make educational knowledge itself problematic (or “pay attention to the “stuff” of curriculum, where knowledge comes from, whose knowledge it is, what social groups it supports, and so on”), and “become more aware of the ideological and epistemological commitments they tacitly accept and promote by using certain models and traditions,” educational theory and policy will continue to have less of an impact than we might hope (p. 13). 305 Apple (2003) suggested that schools “…play a significant part in challenging the very legitimacy of political and cultural dominance” (p. 5). When teachers begin to actively question and resist the assumptions imbedded in policies like NCLB we will begin to see educational transformation and change at greater rates than are currently observable. Deeper questioning and reflection connected to action will till the soil for urban educators to begin to reclaim instructional autonomy, resist harmful test preparation emphasis, and redefine the goals of education. Besides becoming more critically informed and subsequently acting to effect educational change, teachers must form powerful alliances with urban parents and inform them of educational policy and help mobilize parents to protest and demand policy change. In addition to these suggestions, there are several recommendations for urban educators. First, teachers can begin to provide organized resistance to the excessive emphasis on standardized testing resulting from NCLB implementation. Neill (2008) noted “the threat of sanctions, coupled with the use of "interim" or "benchmark" tests — periodic mini-tests designed to predict performance on the big test — and scripted curricula, has pushed schools populated with low-income students increasingly toward becoming test preparation programs” (¶ 7). Urban teachers can resist such efforts by exercising solidarity and simply refusing to use their instructional time in this manner. In February 2009, UTLA began to do so via its boycott of district periodic assessments noting that they are a waste of money in a time of budget crisis and that they lack usefulness and waste valuable instructional time (UTLA, 2009). As one teacher in this study noted, “[the district periodic assessments] ask questions… that have nothing to do with anything” leading to needless student frustration in addition to the loss of instructional time. 306 The organized resistance UTLA provided to the periodic assessments is a model for urban teacher unions nationwide. Second, teachers can facilitate the inclusion of free parenting skills for preadolescents classes at their school sites. One teacher in this study explained how schools can facilitate the development of parenting skills: You know, to offer them a parenting course that is free, this is how to be a parent, like how to be a parent 101, these are the simple things you can do, homework schedule, supervision, time management, anything, little tips. I know as teachers it sounds a little remedial but something as simple as that can really make a difference. Through these classes teachers can build positive social capital by forming alliances with parents to improve school by strengthening families with communication skills, assertive discipline practices, providing parents with access to community networking and resource development and locations, and even more basic activities such as nutritional family dietary suggestions. This will help bring parents into schools in meaningful ways that directly improve family life which is certain to positively impact student achievement. Third, teachers can help students and parents by promoting and providing access to bilingual education activities. A simple way teachers can do this is by providing access to multilingual reading materials in their classroom libraries. Access is crucial to developing literacy. In addition, Krashen (1998, 1999, 2002, 2004) noted that when children read a lot in their first language, they build first language literacy rapidly and these skills transfer at a rapid pace to other languages. Fourth, teachers can restore a sense of play to learning and emphasize interdisciplinary connections in learning activities. 307 The deleterious effects of high-stakes testing mechanisms promoted by NCLB implementation have been well outlined (Cizek & Burg, 2006; DeBard & Kubow, 2002; Jones & Egley, 2004; Jones et al., 1999; McDonald, 2001; Oehlberg, 2006; Triplett, Barksdale, & Leftwich, 2003; Zeidner, 1998). Stress and fear have been shown to be creativity killers and do not in any way build positive dispositions towards learning or living (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997; Seligman, 2002). In addition, Wraga (2009) discussed how “increased use of subject specific high-stakes tests in the name of accountability tend to reduce academic subject matter to splinters of ‘measurable’ information thus further fragmenting the curriculum and students’ understanding of the world” (p. 89). The world is not divided into neat, discrete categories, and neither should be learning. Fifth, teachers in all content areas need to emphasize critical academic literacy in their instruction. When examining the NAEP reading and writing scores of urban students outlined in Chapter One of this manuscript, may be tempting to conclude that urban middle school students need to “learn to read”; indeed Finn (1999) explained: As working class children progress through school their reading scores fall father and farther below their actual grade level. We presume they don’t have the basics and we need to give them more phonics. They don’t need more phonics. They need to be introduced into and made to feel welcome in a community were explicit language makes sense, where it is necessarya community where nonconformity is tolerated and even encouraged, where authority is exercised collaboratively, and where students do not feel powerless, where they have choices regarding the topics they will study and the materials they will use and where they are given freedom to work with others (preferably from backgrounds different from their own) and to move around the room. (p. 91) Essentially, adolescent working class children need to be introduced to and supported with navigating critical academic literacy. 308 Short and Fitzsimmons (2007) noted that academic literacy: (a) includes reading, writing, and oral discourse for school, (b) varies from subject to subject, (c) requires knowledge of multiple genres of text, purposes for text use, and text media, and (d) is influenced by students’ literacies in contexts outside of school including students personal, social, and cultural experiences (see Heller & Greenleaf, 2007 for a discussion of effective middle and high school content area literacy instruction; see Biancarosa & Snow, 2006, Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008, Graham & Perin, 2007, and Morrell 2004, 2007 for explications of critical academic literacy strategies for middle and high school students). Finally, the vision of education has been stolen by corporations and the military complex; teachers must reclaim that vision by collaborating, dialoguing, and acting instead of passively watching the destruction of American public education. Teachers need to demand a return to holistic, student-centered pedagogical approaches. The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (2009) whole child petition effort is lobbying state boards of education nationwide to support policies and practices that increase support for families, develop the talents of youth, promote active learning in a safe environment that is connected to the school and broader community, and provides access to personalized learning experiences for every child. Implications and Recommendations for Policy Makers Under the leadership of President Barack Hussein Obama, the 111th Congress will consider reauthorizing ESEA with the blemish of NCLB, renaming or refashioning NCLB (while keeping the same aims towards national standardization, privatization, and corporatization), or repealing NCLB while maintaining or strengthening the original principles of ESEA. 309 The commitment to preserving and improving American public education has only been made stronger though NCLB implementation has relentlessly attacked teacher morale. NCLB proponents constantly emphasize that focusing on the achievement gap is the way to increase educational equality. However, critical education scholars argue that equality has become redefined, “no longer is it seen as linked to past group oppression and disadvantagement. It is now simply a case of guaranteeing individual choice under the conditions of a ‘free market’; furthermore, Apple outlined that there have been concerted attacks on teachers (and curricula) based on a “profound mistrust of their quality and commitments” (Apple, 2000, p. 19). Apple explained: In a similar way, behind a good deal of the rhetorical artifice of concern about the achievement levels in, say, inner-city schools, notions of choice have begun to evolve in which deep-seated school problems will be solved by establishing free competition over students. They assume that by expanding the capitalist marketplace to schools, we will somehow compensate for the decades of economic and educational neglect experienced by the communities in which these schools are found. (p. 19) Clearly the application of free-market models to public schools has not produced a massive upswing in Black, Latino, or ELL achievement (Abedi & Dietel, 2004; Editorial Projects in Education, 2000; Education Trust West, 2008; Fry, 2007; Lee, 2006). First, policy makers need to begin to focus on the real gaps in American society that directly impact achievement gaps, the vast and ever widening economic gaps. Neill (2008) cautioned, “when policy focuses on the ‘achievement gap’ and thus on test scores, it mostly ignores the importance of inputs and processes - that is, the resources available to a school and the educational approaches and experiences within it” (¶ 8). Similarly, Coles (2008/2009) discussed the prevailing hard bigotry of indifference in America and how hunger/food insecurity relates to academic success and child development. 310 Accordingly, policy makers need to become informed about the realities of urban public schools. No amount of standardized testing will address the larger problems of social injustice, poverty, and de facto segregation that currently exist in urban communities. NCLB has provided a distractor from these real issues, however, people are slowly awakening and seeing that our nation is even more deeply troubled now than ever before by the very issues NCLB purported to address (educational inequality, floundering achievement, and lack of innovation and creativity). Finally, policy makers need to set more realistic goals for American schools. Mandating even more standardized testing, corporatizing or militarizing public schools, and demanding absolute proficiency by 2013-2014 is not the way to increase equity or reform schools to develop the 21st century skills required for global citizenship. As one teacher noted, “frankly, I think this whole thing about 100% proficiency by 2013 is as good as saying by the year 2050 we won’t have anybody on welfare. It’s wishful thinking.” Unfortunately, it is wishful thinking at the expense of urban students and schools as sanctions increase and schools are undermined or dismantled. The 100 percent proficiency concept needs to be abandoned and the vision-setting for education needs to be restored to education professionals. Essentially, the time has arrived to address the real issues of poverty and social inequity which ESEA originally was designed to address and to eliminate components that were added to advance the aims of the BRT and National Governors Association. When making educational reforms, involve those who are vested in education instead of solely considering those who view education as a portfolio building opportunity. 311 Contributions of the Present Study The present study makes two significant contributions to the study of NCLB implementation in urban schools. First, this study provides qualitative insight into the effects that NCLB implementation is having on urban educators and students in terms of educational choice and equity, teacher professionalism and autonomy, and the interests of students and communities. The voices of urban educators were a missing piece in the dialogue surrounding NCLB implementation. No government organization has substantially sought their inclusion in any step of the process from the development of NCLB to the many considerations of its effectiveness. Finally, this study inserts the voice of urban educators into the dialogue surrounding NCLB reauthorization. Previous studies lacked the voice of urban educators who this legislation clearly targets in its reform efforts. Directions for Future Research Future research into NCLB implementation should seek to raise the critical consciousness of readers by directly presenting the voices of urban administrators, out-ofthe-classroom teachers, students, parents, and community members. For example, the findings of this research suggest that the values imbedded in NCLB are incongruent with those of Mexican families. Further research involving families can broaden our understanding in that regard. In addition, it appears that middle school students are producing even stronger resistance to testing requirements, so illuminating their voices may prove informative for policymakers and educators. Finally, research needs to be conducted to explore how the social conditions warranting NCLB and its predecessors came to be. 312 Concluding Remarks The fate of American public schools rests in the hands of President Barack Obama and the 111th Congress. They alone will decide whether to continue the morale suck and denigration of teachers that exists as a result of NCLB implementation in urban schools, they will decide whether to continue neglecting Music, Social Studies, the Arts, Science, Electives, higher order thinking, creativity, and problem solving skills by placing federal restrictions on curriculum and instruction. They will decide whether to deny African American, Latino, students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged, and others access to opportunities based on their standardized test performance, they will decide whether our Nation’s brightest students continue to be stigmatized and neglected for performing “well” when others require excessive remediation, they will decide whether 100 percent proficiency by the year 2013 is a worthwhile goal for American schools, they will decide whether 19th century test mechanisms adequately measure 21st century skills. The voices of 33 educators contained in this study cry out for attention and relief. Teachers want accountability for all stakeholders-- administrators, parents, teachers, and students alike and most certainly want to see students achieve, but achievement cannot be coerced via the federalization, corporatization, or militarization of American public schools. National goals or demands cannot usurp local contexts and realities, and chastising education will not right the social and fiscal inequities deeply imbedded in American society. The high-flying words and noble sentiments of NCLB were subverted in the name of power, expedience, greed, and intolerance. Only bold decisions will restore the just aims of ESEA. 313 References Abedi, J. (2003). Standardized achievement tests and English language learners: Psychometric issues. Educational Assessment, 8(3), 231-258. Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher 33(l), 4-14. Abedi, J., & Dietel, R. (2004). Challenges in the No Child Left Behind Act for English language learners. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Abernathy, S.F. (2007). No Child Left Behind and the public schools. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Acuña, R. (1995). Anything but Mexican. London: Verso. Aisenberg, E., & Mennen, F.E. (2000). Children exposed to community violence: Issues for assessment and treatment. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 17, 241-360. Albrecht, S.F., & Joles, C. (2003). Accountability and access to opportunity: Mutually exclusive tenets under a high-stakes testing mandate. Preventing School Failure, 47(2), 86-91. Alexander, K.L., Entwisle, D.R., & Kabbini, N.S. (2001). The dropout process in life course perspective: Early risk factors at home and school. Teachers College Record, 103, 760-882. Alexander, L. “1989 education summit.” Congressional Record 108: 14 (November 18, 2004) p. S11449. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://thomas.loc.gov Alexander, L. (2009, January 13). Arne Duncan: Obama’s best cabinet appointment. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from http://alexander.senate.gov Allen, J., Altwerger, B., Edelsky, C., Larson, J., Rios-Aguilar, C., Shannon, P., et al. (2007). Taking a stand on NCLB. Language Arts, 84(5), 456-464. Amer, M., & Manning, J.E. (2008, December 31). Membership of the 111th Congress: A profile. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. American Federation of Teachers. (2006, July). Smart testing: Let’s get it right—how assessment-savvy have states become since NCLB? (Issue Brief No. 19). Washington, DC: Author. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Public Law No. 111-5. 314 Amrein, A.L., & Berliner, D.C. (2003). The effects of high stakes testing on students’ motivation and learning. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 32-38. Anglin, T.N., Song, L., & Lunghofer, L. (1995). Adolescents’ exposure to violence associated symptoms of psychological trauma. Journal of American Medical Association, 273, 477-482. Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban education reform. New York: Teachers College Press. Anyon, J. (2005). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social movement. New York: Routledge. Anyon, J. (2008). On the effects of poverty. In P. Cookson, & K. Welner (Eds.), Fellows’ Education Letters to the President (pp. 4-5). Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Research Unit; Boulder, CO: Education and the Public Interest Center. Apple, M.W. (1995). Education and power (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. (Original work published in 1982) Apple, M.W. (2000). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Apple, M.W. (2003). The state and the politics of knowledge. New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Apple, M.W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge. (Original work published 1979) Apple, M.W. (2006). Educating the “right” way: markets, standards, god, and inequality (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge. Apple, M.W. (2008, May). The tasks of the critical scholar/activist in education. Paper prepared for the California Association of Freirean Educators VII Annual Conference sponsored by the Paulo Freire Institute, Los Angeles, CA. Argyris, C., & Schön, D.A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Armour-Garb, A. (2008, June). Accountability in K-12 education. Albany, NY: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2009). The whole child petition. Retrieved February 6, 2009, from http://www.wholechildeducation.org/getinvolved/thewholechild/view 315 Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now v. New York City Department of Education, 269 F. Supp. 2d 338 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Averill, J. (1980). A constructivist view of emotion. In K. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), Theories of emotion (pp. 305-339). New York: Academic. Averill, J. (1986). The acquisition of emotions during adulthood. In R. Harré (Ed.), The social construction of emotions (pp. 98-119). New York: Blackwell. Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & Mac Iver, D.J. (2007). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the graduation path in urban middle-grade schools: Early identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42, 223-235. Bancroft, K. (2009). To have and to have not: The socioeconomics of charter schools. Education and Urban Society, 41(2), 248-279. Bastian, A. (1992). Which choice? Whose choice? Clearinghouse, 62(2), 96-100. Berkowitz, B. (2005, October 25). Philanthropy the Wal-Mart way: Will the Walton Family Foundation become a $20 billion tax-exempt opponent of public education?. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=88 Berliner, DC, & Biddle, B.J. (1996). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books. Berliner, DC (2006). Our impoverished view of educational research. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 949-995. Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C.E. (2006). Reading next- a vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Biddle, B. (2008). On youth poverty and educational failure. In P. Cookson, & K. Welner (Eds.), Fellows’ Education Letters to the President (pp. 9-12). Tempe, AZ: Education Policy Research Unit; Boulder, CO: Education Public Interest Center. Bischoff, K. (2008). School district fragmentation and racial residential segregation: How do boundaries matter? Urban Affairs Review, 44(2), 182-217. Blume, H., & Uhrich, K. (1998, August 20). Charter school for scandal. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from http://www.laweekly.com/1998-08-20/news/charter-school-for-scandal-page-1 Board of Education of Ottowa Township High School District 140 v. U.S. Department of Education, No. 05-655 (N.D. Ill. 2005). 316 Bogdan, R.C., & Biklen, S.K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theories and methods (5th ed.). New York: Pearson Education. Bourdieu, P. (2004). Science of science and reflexivity. (R. Nice, Trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 2001). Bourne, E.J. (2009). Global shift: How a new worldview is transforming humanity. Oakland, CA: New Harbinger Publications. Brint, S., & Teele, S. (2008). Professionalism under siege: Teachers’ views of NCLB. In A.R. Sadovnik, J.A. O’Day, G.W. Bohrnstedt. & K.M. Borman (Eds.), No Child Left Behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal education policy (pp. 131-152). New York: Routledge. Brown, V.E. (2006). National impact: The real “gap” in closing the academic achievement gap: Parent accountability and No Child Left Behind. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 1-15. Bryant, M.J., Hammond, K.A., Bocian, K.M., Rettig, M.F., Miller, C.A., & Cardullo, R.A. (2008). School performance will fail to meet legislated benchmarks. Science(321), 1781-1782. Buddin, R., & Zimmer, R. (2005). Is charter school competition in California improving the performance of traditional public schools?. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education. Buka, S.L., Stichick, T.L., Birdthistle, I., & Earls, F.J. (2001). Youth exposure to violence: Prevalence, risks, and consequences. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 71, 298-310. Buntrock, L. (2008). Differences in emotional intelligence abilities between principals in high-poverty AYP schools and principals in high-poverty non-AYP schools in an urban school district. Dissertations Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 69(2-A), 444. (UMI No. AA13302211) Buras, K.L. (2006). Tracing the core knowledge movement: History lessons from above and below. In M.W. Apple & K.L. Buras (Eds.), The subaltern speak: Curriculum, power, and educational struggles (pp. 1-42). New York: Routledge. Burch, P., Steinberg, M., & Donovan, J. (2007). Supplemental educational services and NCLB: Policy assumptions, market practices, emerging issues. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(2), 115-133. 317 Bush, G.H.W. (1989, September 28). “Joint statement on the education summit with the nation’s governors in Charlottesville, Virginia.” In J.T. Woolley and G. Peters, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (hosted), G. Peters (database). Retrieved November 11, 2008, from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=17580 Bush, G.H.W. (1991, April 18). “Address to the Nation on the National Education Strategy.” In The Museum at the George Bush Presidential Library [online]. College, Station, TX: Texas A&M University (hosted), Retrieved November 11, 2008, from http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/public_papers.php Business Roundtable. (2008, December 16). Business Roundtable statement on Obama’s secretary of education. Retrieved December 16, 2008, from http://www.businessroundtable.org/sites/default/files/ California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California Department of Education. (1997). The California Standards for the Teaching Profession. Sacramento, CA: Author. California Department of Education. (2001). Public Schools Accountability Act program overview graphic representation. Retrieved October 31, 2008, from http://cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/pa/documents/overview.pdf California Department of Education. (2002). The Academic Performance Index (API): A six-year plan for development 2001-2006. Sacramento, CA: Author. California Department of Education. (2007). Consolidated state performance report: Parts I and II. Sacramento, CA: Author. California Department of Education. (2008a). 2007-08 Academic Performance Index reports information guide. Retrieved October 31, 2008, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/api California Department of Education. (2008b). 2008 Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) Program: Summary of results. Retrieved October 31, 2008, from http://www/cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sr/documents/sumrsltsstar08.doc California Department of Education. (2008c). 2008-2009 PI status statewide summary. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ay/tistatesum08.asp California Department of Education. (2008d). California assessment system 2008-09. Retrieved October 31, 2008, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/sa/documents/calassesssys0809.pdf 318 California Department of Education. (2008e). Educational options for the year 20072008 [Data file]. Available from the California Basic Education Data System Web site, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb California Department of Education. (2008f). Number of staff by ethnicity- school level [Data file]. Available from the California Basic Education Data System Web site, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb California Department of Education. (2008g). Staff education and service report- school level [Data file]. Available from the California Basic Education Data System Web site, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb California Department of Education. (2008h). State of California consolidated state application accountability workbook. Retrieved October 31, 2008, from http://www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/sa/wb.asp California Department of Education. (2008i). Teacher credential and experience report [Data file]. Available from the California Basic Education Data System Web site, http://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/sd/cb California Department of Education Business Services. (2007). Annual per pupil spending—Los Angeles county [Data file]. Available from Rand California Web site, http://ca.rand.org California Dropout Research Project. (2008). Solving California’s dropout crisis: California Dropout Research Project policy committee report. Santa Barbara, CA: Author. California State Board of Education and State Superintendent of Public Instruction. (2006, November 20). California’s revised state plan for No Child Left Behind: highly qualified teacher. Sacramento, CA: Author. Californians for Justice Education Fund v. California Board of Education, A102851, 2003 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 11713 (Cal. App. 20003). Callahan, R., Wilkinson, L., Muller, C., Frisco, M. (2009). ESL placement and schools: Effects on immigrant achievement. Educational Policy, 23(2), 255-384. Ceballo, R., Dahl, T.A., Aretakis, M.T., & Ramirez, C. (2001). Inner-city children’s exposure to community violence: How much do parents know? Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 927-940. Center on Education Policy. (2004). State high school exit exams: A maturing reform. Washington, DC: Author. 319 Center on Education Policy. (2005a). NCLB: Middle schools are increasingly targeted for improvement. Washington, DC: Author. Center on Education Policy. (2005b). NCLB: Urban schools are tagged for improvement at higher rates than suburban or rural schools. Washington, DC: Author. Center on Education Policy. (2007a). Answering the question that matters most: Has student achievement increased since No Child Left Behind?. Washington, DC: Author. Center on Education Policy. (2007b). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Author. Center on Education Policy. (2007c). Implementing the No Child Left Behind teacher requirements: A report in the series from the capital to the classroom year 5 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author. Center on Education Policy. (2007d). Reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: Recommendations from the Center on Education Policy. Washington, DC: Author. Center on Education Policy. (2008a). Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. Washington, DC: Author. Center on Education Policy. (2008b). Managing more than a thousand remodeling projects: School restructuring in California. Washington, DC: Author. Champion, P.A. (2008). Equity vs. excellence: A Delphi study examining the future ramifications of NCLB on gifted education. Dissertations Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(7-A), 2782. (UMI No. AA13277191) Chapman, L.H. (2007). An update on No Child Left Behind and national trends in education. Arts Education Policy Review, 109(1), 25-36. Charles, C.Z. (2006). Won’t you be my neighbor?: Race, class, and segregation in Los Angeles. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Cizek, G.J., & Burg, S.S. (2006). Addressing test anxiety in a high-stakes environment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Clarke, M. (2007). State responses to the No Child Left Behind Act: The uncertain link between implementation and “proficiency for all”. In C.F. Kaestle & A.E. Lodewick (Eds.), To educate a nation: Federal and national strategies of school reform (pp.144-175). Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 320 Clemmitt, M. (2007). Fixing urban schools: Has No Child Left Behind helped minority students?. CQ Researcher, 17(16), 361-384. Clotfelter, C. (2001). Are Whites still fleeing? Racial patterns and enrollment shifts in urban public schools, 1987-1996. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(2), 199-221. Coachella Valley Unified School District v. The State of California, No. CPF-05-505334, 2005 Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (D. Ca. Feb. 1, 2008). Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D., York, R.L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Coles, G. (2008/2009). Hunger, academic success, and the hard bigotry of indifference. Rethinking Schools, 23(2), Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/23_02/hung232.shtml Commission on No Child Left Behind. (2007). Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the promise to our nation’s children. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute. Coombs, R.H., Paulson, M.J., & Richardson, M.A. (1991). Peer vs. parental influences in substance use among Hispanic and Anglo children and adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 20(1), 73-88. Cooper, B.S., & Randall, E.V. (2008). Fear and privatization. Educational policy, 22(1), 204-227. Cordeiro, P. A., & Cunningham, W. G. (1999). Educational leadership: A problem-based approach (2nd edition). New York: Allyn & Bacon. Council for Basic Education. (2004). Minority students most affected by curriculum changes, study reveals. In K. Goodman, Y. Goodman, R. Rapoport, & P. Shannon (Eds.), Saving our schools: The case for public education saying no to ‘No Child Left Behind’ (pp. 272-273). Berkeley, CA: RDR Books. Council of Chief State School Officers. (2007). Recommendations to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: Author. Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Crisafulli, T. (2006). No Child Left Behind and tenure: How a corrective action threatens dismissal and why tenured educators should keep their jobs. Brigham Young Education and Law Journal, 2, 613-637. 321 Crocco, M.S., & Costigan, A.T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability: Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512-535. Cross, C.T. (2004). Political education: National policy comes of age. New York: Teachers College Press. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperPerrenial. Danforth, J. (2006). Faith and politics: How the "moral values" debate divides America and how to move forward together. New York: Penguin Group. Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality, and educational accountability: The irony of No Child Left Behind. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 10(3), 245-260. Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The design of teacher education programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 390-441). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Darling-Hammond, L., Holtzman, D., Gatlin, S.J., & Heilig, J.V. (2005). Does teacher preparation matter? Evidence about teacher certification, Teach for America, and teacher effectiveness. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 13(42). Retrieved December 25, 2008, http://epaa.asu.edu/epa/v13n42 Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003, September 17). Wanted: A national teacher supply policy for education: The right way to meet the "highly qualified teacher" challenge. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(33). Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n33/ Davalos, D.B., Chavez, E.L., & Guardiola, R.J. (2005). Effects of perceived parental school support and family communication on delinquent behaviors in Latinos and White non-Latinos. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11, 5768. DeBard, R., & Kubow, P.K. (2002). From compliance to commitment: The need for constituent discourse in implementing testing policy. Educational policy, 16(3), 387-405. DeBray, E.H. (2006). Politics, ideology, and education: Federal policy during the Clinton and Bush administrations. New York: Teachers College Press. DeBray-Pelot, E., & McGuinn P. (2009). The new politics of education: Analyzing the federal education policy landscape in the post-NCLB era. Educational Policy, 23(1), 15-42. 322 Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press. Denzin, N.K. (2005). Interpretive interactionism (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dinan, J., & Krane, D. (2006). The state of American federalism, 2005: Federalism resurfaces in the political debate. Publius, 36(3), 327-348. Disability Rights Advocates. (2001). Do no harm: High stakes testing and students with learning disabilities. Oakland, CA: LD Access Foundation. Domina, T. (2006). Brain drain and brain gain: Educational segregation in the United States. Dissertations Abstracts International, 67 (01), 341. (UMI No. 3204962) Donahoo, S., & Greer, N. (2006). Struggling to mend it or end it: Legal and legislative issues in the brief history of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. In F. Brown & R.C. Hunter (Eds.), Advances in educational administration volume 9 (pp. 141154). Oxford: JAI Press. Duffy, A.J. (2009, January 13). Comments on reduction in force at LAUSD school board meeting. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://www.utla.net/node/2057 Duncan-Andrade, J.M., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools. New York: Peter Lang. Eaker-Rich, D., & Van Galen, J. (1996). Caring in an unjust world: Negotiating borders and barriers in schools. New York: State University of New York Press. Eccles, J.S., & Midgley, C. (1989), Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In R.E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education, Vol. 3, (pp. 139-196). New York: Academic Press. Eccles, J.S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchannam, C.M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & MacIver, D. (1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stageenvironment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 90-101. Editorial Projects in Education. (2009). National highlights report 2009 a special supplement to Education Week’s Quality Counts 2009 portrait of a population: How English-language learners are putting schools to the test. Bethesda, MD: Author. Education Commission of the States. (2004). ECS report to the nation- state implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Respecting diversity among the states. Denver, CO: Author. 323 Education Trust West. (2008). Achievement in California 2008: Fading gains, growing gaps. Oakland, CA: Author. Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965, Public Law No. 89-10. Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, Public Law No. 110-343. English, F.W. (2002). On the intractability of the achievement gap in urban schools and the discursive practice of continuing racial discrimination. Education and Urban Society, 34(3), 298-311. Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363-406. Exec. Order No. 13198, 66 Fed. Reg. 8,499 (2001). Farkas, S., Johnson, J., Duffett, A., Syat, B., & Vine, J. (2003). Rolling up their sleeves: Superintendents and principals talk about what’s needed to fix public schools. New York: The Public Agenda Foundation. Fern, E.F. (2001). Advanced focus group research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Finn, P.J. (1999). Literacy with attitude: Educating working-class children in their own self-interest. New York: State University of New York Press. Firestone, W.A., Monfils, L., Camilli, G., Schorr, R.Y., Hicks, J.E., & Mayrowetz, D. (2002). The ambiguity of test preparation: A multimethod analysis in one state. Teachers College Record, 104(7), 1485-1523. Forum on Educational Accountability. (2004, October 21). Joint organizational statement on No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.edaccountability.org/Joint_Statement.html Forum on Educational Accountability. (2007). Assessment and accountability for improving schools and learning: Principles and recommendations for federal law and state and local systems. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.edaccountability.org Frattura, E.M., & Topinka, C. (2006). Theoretical underpinnings of separate educational programs: The social justice challenge continues. Education and Urban Society, 38(3), 327-344. Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. (D. Macedo, Trans.). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. 324 Freire, P. (1997). Mentoring the mentor: A critical dialogue with Paulo Freire. New York: Peter Lang. Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare to teach. (D. Macedo, D. Koike, & A. Oliveira, Trans.). Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Freire, P. (2000). Cultural action for freedom (2000 ed.). (M. Gallart & B. Brizuela, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: President and Friends of Harvard College. (Original work published 1970) Freire, P. (2007). Pedagogy of the oppressed. (M. B. Ramos, Trans.). New York: Continuum Publishing Group. (Original work published 1970) Fresh Start Academy v. Toledo Board of Education, No. 3:05 CV 7006, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5336 (N.D. Ohio 2005). Fry, R. (2007, June 7). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners?. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Fuller, B., & Novack, J.R. (2004). Penalizing diverse schools: Similar test scores, but different students, bring federal sanctions. In K. Goodman, Y. Goodman, R. Rapoport, & P. Shannon (Eds.), Saving our schools: The case for public education saying no to ‘No Child Left Behind’ (pp. 218-222). Berkeley, CA: RDR Books. Fusarelli, L.D. (2004). The potential impact of No Child Left Behind on equity and diversity in American education. Educational Policy, 18(1), 71-94. Gallagher, J.J. (2004). No Child Left Behind and gifted education. Roeper Review, 26, 121-123. Gallagher, J.J. (2007). Accountability?: To what end?. Roeper Review, 29(5), 10. Gándara, P., Rumberger, R., Maxwell-Jolly, J., & Callahan, R. (2003, October 7). English learners in California schools: Unequal resources, unequal outcomes. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11(36). Retrieved December 25, 2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n36 Garbarino, J. (2001). An ecological perspective on the effects of violence on children. Journal of Community Psychology, 29, 361-378. Garcia, D.R. (2008). The impact of school choice on racial segregation in charter schools. Educational policy, 22(6), 805-829. 325 Garda, R.A., Jr. (2007). Coming full circle: The journey from separate but equal to separate and unequal schools. Duke Journal of Constitutional Law and Public Policy, 2, 3-91. Garza, C.L. (2006, March 23). Former first lady’s donation aids son: Katrina funds earmarked to pay for Neil Bush’s software program. Houston Chronicle. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. George, T., Jones, D., & Lee, T. (2005). The roots of high-stakes testing. Unpublished manuscript. Gentry, M. (2006a). NCLB: Neglecting excellence. Roeper Review, 29(1), 24-27. Gentry, M. (2006b). No Child Left Behind: Gifted children and school counselors. Professional School Counseling, 10(1), 73-81. Gerstl-Pepin, C.I. (2006). The paradox of poverty narratives: Educators struggling with children left behind. Educational Policy, 20(1), 143-162. Gibbings, G.M. (2008). How successful urban school superintendents in California improve student achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Gladstein, J., Rusonis, E.S., & Heald, F.P. (1992). A comparison of inner-city and upper middle class youths’ exposure to violence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 13, 275280. Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (2006). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Piscataway, NJ: AldineTransaction. (Original work published 1967). Giroux, H.A. (1998). The business of public education. Z Magazine. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.henryagiroux.com/online_articles/ Giroux, H.A. (2003). The abandoned generation: Democracy beyond a culture of fear. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Giroux, H.A., & Saltman, K. (2008, December 17). Obama’s betrayal of public education?: Arne Duncan and the corporate model of schooling. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from http://www.truthout.org/121708R Gloecker, L.C. (2001). The door to opportunity: Let’s open it for everyone. State Education Standard, 2, 21-25. 326 Goals 2000: Educate America Act, H.R. 1804, 103rd Cong. (1994). Goldschmidt, P., & Wang, J. (1999). When can schools affect dropout behavior? A longitudinal multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 36(4), 715-738. Gooden, M.A., & Nowlin, T.Y. (2006). The achievement gap and the No Child Left Behind Act: Is there a connection?. In F. Brown & R. C. Hunter (Eds.), Advances in educational administration: Vol. 9. No Child Left Behind and other federal programs for urban school districts. Oxford: JAI Press. Goodman, K. (2004). NCLB: A tool in the neoconservative movement to privatize American education. In K. Goodman, Y. Goodman, R. Rapoport, & P. Shannon (Eds.), Saving our schools: The case for public education saying no to ‘No Child Left Behind’ (pp. 51-65). Berkeley, CA: RDR Books. Gordon, E.W. (2006, November). Affirmative development of academic ability. Presented at the Fall 2006 UCI/CSU Educational Leadership Research Institute, Alhambra, CA. Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P.H., Zelli, A., & Huesmann, L.R. (1996). The relation of family functioning to violence among inner-city minority youth. Journal of Family Psychology, 10(2), 115-129. Gough, B. (2003). Deconstructing reflexivity. In L. Finlay & B. Gough (Eds.), Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences (pp. 21-36). Oxford: Blackwell Science. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next- effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Guba, E.G., & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Guth, G.J.A., Holtzman, D.J., Schneider, S.A., Carlos, L., Smith, J.R., Hayward, G.C., et al. (1999). Evaluation of California’s standards based accountability system. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Retrieved January 1, 2009 from http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/accountability Haladyna, T.M. (2006). Perils of standardized achievement testing. Educational Horizons, 85(1), 30-43. 327 Hamilton, L.S., Stecher, B.M., Marsh, J.A., McCombs, J.S., Robyn, A., Russell, J.L., et al. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Haney, W. (2000, August 19). The myth of the Texas miracle. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41). Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41 Harrison, B., & Bluestone, B. (1988). The great u-turn: Corporate restructuring and the polarization of America. New York: Basic Books. Hawken, P. (2007). Blessed unrest: How the largest movement in the world came into being, and why no one saw it coming. New York: Viking. Healy, G., & Lynch. T. (2006). Power surge: The constitutional record of George W. Bush. Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Hechinger, F.M. (1994). Saving youth from violence. Carnegie Quarterly, 39, 2-15. Heller, R., & Greenleaf, C.L. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Henley, J., McBride, J., Milligan, J., & Nichols, J. (2007). Robbing elementary students of their childhood: The perils of No Child Left Behind. Education, 128(1), 56-63. Hess, F.M., & Petrilli, M.J. (2006). No Child Left Behind: A Peter Lang primer. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Heubert, J.P., & Hauser, R.M. (Eds.). (1999). High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Hilliard, A. (1991). Do we have the will to educate all the children? Educational Leadership, 9(36), 31-36. Hinchey, P.H., & Cadiero-Kaplan, K. (2005). The future of teacher education and teaching: Another piece of the privatization puzzle. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 3(2). Retrieved November 1, 2006 from http://www.jceps.com/?pageID=article&articleID=48 Hirsch, E.D. (2005). Education reform and content: The long view. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy: 2005 (pp. 175-208). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. 328 Hoffman, L.M., & Nottis, K.E.K. (2008). Middle school students’ perceptions of effective motivation and preparation factors for high-stakes tests. NAASP Bulletin, 92(3), 209-233. Hoffman, J.V., & Sailors, M. (2004). Those who can’t teach, can: Assessing the impact of No Child Left Behind on teacher education. In K. Goodman, Y. Goodman, R. Rapoport, & P. Shannon (Eds.), Saving our schools: The case for public education saying no to ‘No Child Left Behind’ (pp. 137-150). Berkeley, CA: RDR Books. Horn, C. (2003). High-stakes testing and students: Stopping or perpetuating the cycle of failure? Theory into Practice, 42(1), 30-41. Houston, P.D. (2007). The seven deadly sins of No Child Left Behind. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(10), 744-748. Howell, W. (2004). Fumbling for an exit key: Parents, choice, and the future of NCLB. In C.F. Finn & F.M. Hess (Eds.), Leaving no child behind?: Options for kids in failing schools (pp. 161-190). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Howell, W. (2006). Switching schools? A closer look at parents’ initial interest in and knowledge about the choice provisions of No Child Left Behind. Peabody Journal of Education, 81(1), 140-179. Hunt, J.W. (2008). A nation at risk and No Child Left Behind: Déjà vu for administrators?. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(8), 580-585. Hursh, D. (2007a). Assessing No Child Left Behind and the rise of neoliberal policies. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493-518. Hursh, D. (2007b). Exacerbating inequality: The failed promise of the No Child Left Behind Act. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 10(3), 295-308. Iceland, J., & Wilkes, R. (2004). Does socioeconomic status matter? Race, class, and residential segregation. Social Problems, 53, 248-273. Improving America’s Schools Act, Public Law No. 103-382. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Public Law No. 94-142. Ingersoll, R.M. (2003). Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Ingersoll, R.M. (2005). The problem of underqualified teachers: A sociological perspective. Sociology of Education, 78(2), 175-178. 329 Irons, E.J., & Harris, S. (2007). The challenges of No Child Left Behind: Understanding the issues of excellence, accountability, and choice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Jacob, B.A. (2001). Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 99-121. Jespen, C., & de Alth, S. (2005). English learners in California schools. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. Johnson, A.P. (2006). No Child Left Behind: Factory models and business paradigms. The Clearing House, 80(1), 34-36. Johnson, D.P. (2007). Challenges to No Child Left Behind: Title I and Hispanic students locked away for later. Education and Urban Society, 39(3), 382-398. Johnson, R., & Bush, L., V. (2005). Leading the school through culturally responsive inquiry. In F.W. English (Ed.), The Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research, and practice (pp. 269-296). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Jones, M.G., & Egley, R.J. (2004). Voices from the frontlines: Teachers’ perceptions of high-stakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(39). Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v12n39 Jones, M.G., Jones, B.D., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M. (1999). The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(3), 199-203. Kahlenberg, R.D. (2008, June 12). Fixing No Child Left Behind. New York: The Century Foundation. Kamberelis, G., & Dimitriadis, G. (2005). Focus groups: Strategic articulations of pedagogy, politics, and inquiry. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research, 3rd ed., (pp.887-908). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kaplan, S.N. (2004). Where we stand determines the answer to the question: Can the No Child Left Behind legislation be beneficial to gifted students? Roeper Review, 26, 124-125. Karaba, R. (2006). No Cartesian left behind. In T.S. Poetter, J.C. Wegwert, & C. Haerr (Eds.), No Child Left Behind and the illusion of reform: Critical essays by educators (pp. 29-40). Lanham, MD: University Press of America. 330 Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., Ryan, J.B., & Jones, J. (2007). High-stakes testing and students with disabilities: Challenges and promises. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(3), 160-167. Kegerreis v. United States, Civil Action No. 03-2232-KHV, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18102 (D. Kan. 2003). Kerr, M.H., Beck, K., Shattuck, T.D., Kattar, C., Uriburi, D. (2003). Family involvement, problem and prosocial behavior outcomes of Latino youth. American Journal of Health Behavior, 27, 55-65. Kim, J., & Sunderman, G.L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3-13. Kitmitto, S., and Bandeira de Mello, V. (2008). Measuring the status and change of NAEP state inclusion rates for students with disabilities (NCES 2009-453). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Knodel, J. (1993). The design and analysis of focus group studies: A practical approach. In D.L. Morgan (Ed.), Successful focus groups: Advancing the state of the art (pp. 35-50). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Kohn, A. (2005). NCLB and the effort to privatize public education. In D. Meier & G. Wood (Eds.), Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools (pp. 77-99). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Kolostyak, P., Lee, T., & Martinez, M. (2009, February 13). Survey of equitable classroom visitations. Los Angeles, CA: Author. Koretz, D. (2008). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. (2001). The performance of students with disabilities on the New York Regents comprehensive examination of English (CSE technical report 540). University of California, Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation. Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation. New York: Crown. Kozol, J. (2006). Confections of apartheid continue in our schools. Education Digest, 71(6), 4-22. Krashen, S.D. (1998). Heritage language development: Some practical arguments. In S. Krashen, L. Tse, & J. McQuillan (Eds.), Heritage language development (pp. 313). Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. 331 Krashen, S.D. (1999). Condemned without a trial: Bogus arguments against bilingual education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Publishing Company. Krashen, S.D. (2002). Bush’s bad idea for bilingual ed. Rethinking Schools, 15(4), Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bilingual/Bied154.shtml Krashen, S.D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Krashen, S.D. (2006). Did reading first work? Retrieved February 14, 2009, from http://www.elladvocates.org/issuebriefs/Krashen_reading_first.pdf Krathwohl, D.R. (2004). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press. (Original work published 1998). Kress, S. (2007). Confessions of a “No Child Left Behind” supporter: An interview with Sandy Kress. Education Next, 7(2), 30-37. Krueger, R.A. (1998a). Developing questions for focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Krueger, R.A. (1998b). Moderating focus groups. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Krueger, R.A. (1998c). Analyzing and reporting focus group results. Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications. Krueger, R.A., & Casey, M.A. (2000). Focus group interviews: A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kruger, L.J., Wandle, C., Struzziero, J. (2007). Coping with the stress of high stakes testing. In L.J. Kruger & D. Shriberg (Eds.), High stakes testing: New challenges and opportunities for school psychology (pp. 109-128). Binghamton, NY: The Haworth Press. Lacireno-Paquet, N., Holyoke, T.T., Moser, M., & Henig, J.R. (2002). Creaming versus cropping: Charter school enrollment practices in response to market incentives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 145-158. Laczko-Kerr, I., & Berliner, D.C. (2002). The effectiveness of “Teach for America” and other under-certified teachers on student achievement: A case of harmful public policy. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 19(37). Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n37). 332 Ladson-Billings, G. (2001). Crossing over to Canaan: The journey of new teachers in diverse classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2003). Metaphors we live by (Revised ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1980) Lazarín, M. (2006). Improving assessment and accountability for English Language Learners in the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza. Leblanc, K. (2008). Principals’ perceptions of No Child Left Behind’s impact on the education of gifted and talented students. Dissertations Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 69(4-A), 1237. (UMI No. AA13309198) Lee, J. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth look into national and state reading and math outcome trends. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Libby, K. (2008, December 29). No cheers for new education secretary: Arne Duncan’s dark years in Chicago. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from http://www.counterpunch.org/libby12292008.html Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Linn, R.L. (2005). Fixing the NCLB accountability system. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Linn, R.L. (2008). Toward a more effective definition of adequate yearly progress. In G.L. Sunderman (Ed.), Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability, equity, and school reform (pp. 27-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Lipka, S. (2007, June 22). Elite company. Chronicle of Higher Education, A31-A35. Lipman, P. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban school reform. New York: Routledge. Lips, D., & Feinberg, E. (2007, March 23). The administrative burden of No Child Left Behind (Issue Brief No. 1406). Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation. Litoselliti, L. (2003). Using focus groups in research. London: Continuum Research Methods. 333 Little Hoover Commission. (2008). Educational governance and accountability: Taking the next step. Sacramento, CA: Milton Marks “Little Hoover” Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy. Los Angeles Unified School District (2009a, March 24). LAUSD budget briefing 200808 and 2009-10. Retrieved March 29, 2009, from http://notebook.lausd.net/ Los Angeles Unified School District. (2009b). Local district 5 middle schools 2007-2008 school year [Data file]. Available from LAUSD School Report Cards Web site, http://www.lausd.net/ReportCard Los Angeles Unified School District. (2009c). School report 2007-2008 school year [Data file]. Available from LAUSD School Report Cards Web site, http://www.lausd.net/ReportCard Loveless, T. (2005). Test-based accountability: The promise and the perils. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy: 2005 (pp. 7-45). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Loveless, T. (2006). The peculiar politics of No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Loveless, T., Farkas, S., & Duffett, A. (2008). High-achieving students in the era of NCLB. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Lubienski, C., Weitzel, P., Lubienski, S.T. (2009). Is there a “consensus” on school choice and achievement? Advocacy research and the emerging political economy of knowledge production. Educational Policy, 23(1), 161-193. Lugg, C.A. (2000). Reading, writing, and reconstructionism: The Christian right and the politics of public education. Educational Policy, 14(5), 622-637. Maehr, M.L., & Anderman, E.M. (1993). Reinventing schools for early adolescents: Emphasizing task goals. Elementary School Journal, 93, 593-610. Manna, P. (2006a). Control, persuasion, and educational accountability: Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Educational Policy, 20(3), 471-494. Manna, P. (2006b). School’s in: Federalism and the national education agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. Martínez, G.A. (2006). Mexican Americans and language: Del dicho al hecho. Tucson, AZ: The University of Arizona Press. 334 Martinez, C.R., McClure, H.H., & Eddy, J.M. (2009). Language brokering contexts and behavioral and emotional adjustment among Latino parents and adolescents. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(1), 71-98. Massey, D., & Denton, N. (1993). American apartheid. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Massey, D.S., & Hirst, D. (1998). From escalator to hourglass: Changes in the U.S. occupational structure: 1949-1989. Social Science Research, 27, 51-71. Maxwell, J.A. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. McCallion, G. (2006, January 20). Reading First: Implementation issues and controversies. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. McCluskey, N. (2005, April 20). Corruption in the public schools: The market is the answer (Issue No. 542). Washington, DC: Cato Institute. McCluskey, N., & Coulson, A.J. (2007, September 5). End it, don’t mend it: What to do with No Child Left Behind (Issue No. 599). Washington, DC: Cato Institute. McDonald, A.S. (2001). The prevalence and effects of test anxiety in school children. Educational Psychology, 21(1), 89-101. McGroarty, M. (2002). Evolving influences on educational language policies. In J.W. Tollefson (Ed.), Language policies in education: Critical issues (pp. 1736).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McGuinn, P.J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the transformation of federal education policy: 1965-2005. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press. McNeil, L.M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge Kegan Paul. McNeil, L.M. (2005). Faking equity: High-stakes testing and the education of Latino youth. In A. Valenzuela (Ed.), Leaving children behind: How “Texas-style” accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 57-111). New York: State University of New York Press. Mehan, H., Villanueva, I., Hubbard, L., & Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing school success: The consequences of untracking low-achieving students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 335 Meier, D. (2005). NCLB and democracy. In D. Meier & G. Wood (Eds.), Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools (pp. 66-78). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Mendoza, C. (2006). Inside today’s classrooms: Teacher voices on No Child Left Behind and the education of gifted children. Roeper Review, 29(1), 28-31. Metcalf, S. (2002, January 28). Reading between the lines. The Nation. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020128/metcalf Merry, M.S. (2008). Educational justice and the gifted. Theory and Research in Education, 6(1), 47-70. Midgley, C. (1993). Motivation and middle level schools. In M.L. Maehr & P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 8 Motivation in the adolescent years (pp. 217-274). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between elementary and middle school teachers and students.: A goal theory approach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15(1), 90-113. Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Minow, M. (2003). Public and private partnerships: Accounting for the new religion. Harvard Law Review, 116(5), 1229-1270. Mintrop, H. (2008). Low performing schools’ programs and state capacity requirements: Meeting the NCLB educational goals. In G.L. Sunderman (Ed.), Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability, equity, and school reform (pp. 137-152). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2005). Corrective action in low-performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from state and district strategies in first-generation accountability systems. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Mitchell, D.E., Scott, L., & Boyns, D. (2000). The California Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program: Statewide evaluation study. Riverside, CA: California Educational Research Cooperative and University of California, Riverside. Mitchell, D.E., Scott-Hendrick, S., Parrish, T., Crowley, J., Karam, R., Boyns, D., et al. (2007). California Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment and Intern Alternative Certification evaluation study. Riverside, CA: California Educational Research Cooperative and University of California, Riverside. 336 Moore, D. (1990). School choice: The new improved sorting machine. In W.H. Clume & J.F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education: Vol. 1 The theory of choice and control in education (pp. 148-160). New York: Falmer. Morgan, D.L. (1998a). The focus group guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Morrell, E. (2004). Becoming critical researchers: Literacy and empowerment for urban youth. New York: Peter Lang. Morrell, E. (2007). Critical literacy and urban youth: Pedagogies of access, dissent, and liberation. New York: Peter Lang. Morrow, R.A., & Torres, C.A. (2002). Reading Freire and Habermas: Critical pedagogy and transformative social change. New York: Teachers College Press. Moustafa, M., & Land, R. (2002). The reading achievement of economically disadvantaged students in urban schools using Open Court. Yearbook of the Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research Special Interest Group of the American Educational Research Association, 44-53. Muolo, P. (2009). 700 billion bailout: The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and what it means to you, your money, your mortgage, and your taxes. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. National Assessment Governing Board. (2006a). Mathematics framework for the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Assessment Governing Board. (2006b). Reading framework for the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Assessment Governing Board. (2006c). Writing assessment framework for the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Assessment Governing Board. (2009). Overview. Retrieved March 15, 2009, from http://www.nagb.org/who-we-are/overview.htm National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2008). National Board for Professional Teaching Standards initial thoughts on the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.nbpts.org/userfiles/File/NBPTS_NCLB.pdf 337 National Center for Education Statistics. (2005). Charter school teacher certification and student accountability characteristics, by state: 2005 [Data table 4.4]. Available from State Education Reforms Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform National Center for Education Statistics. (2006a). Percentage distribution of current expenditures for public, elementary, and secondary education, by function, subfunction, and state [Data table 2.7]. Available from State Education Reforms Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform National Center for Education Statistics. (2006b). Percentage distribution of revenues for public, elementary, and secondary schools, by revenue source and state: Fiscal year 2006 [Data table 2.1]. Available from State Education Reforms Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform National Center for Education Statistics. (2006c). Types of school sanctions, by state: 2005-2006 [Data table 1.4]. Available from State Education Reforms Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform National Center for Education Statistics. (2007a). Alternative paths to graduation for students with disabilities, by state: 2007 [Data table 1.16]. Available from State Education Reforms Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform National Center for Education Statistics. (2007b). Charter school enrollment and closures by state 2006-07 [Data table 4.5]. Available from State Education Reforms Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform National Center for Education Statistics. (2008a). An introduction to NAEP: National Assessment of Education Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. (2008b). Requirements for participation in statefunded induction programs and mentoring programs for beginning teachers, whether standards exist for mentors, and reduced-workload policies for first-year teachers, by state: 2007-2008 [Data table 1.15]. Available from State Education Reforms Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform National Center for Education Statistics. (2008c). Rewards and sanctions for schools, by state: 2007-2008 [Data table 1.3]. Available from State Education Reforms Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform National Center for Education Statistics. (2008d). State high school exit exams, by exam characteristics and state: 2007-08 [Data table 1.11]. Available from State Education Reforms Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform 338 National Center for Education Statistics. (2008e). State high school policies for college and work readiness, by state: 2008 [Data table 1.10]. Available from State Education Reforms Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform National Center for Education Statistics. (2008f). School level in which student assessments are aligned to state standards, by subject and state: 2007-2008 [Data table 1.2]. Available from State Education Reforms Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform National Center for Education Statistics. (2008g). State encouragement and support for Teacher professional development and incentives for earning National Board Certification, by state: 2007-2008 [Data table 3.4]. Available from State Education Reforms Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform National Center for Education Statistics. (2008h). State initial licensure requirements for teacher education in subject area taught, written teacher assessments, and clinical training experiences, by state: 2007-2008 [Data table 3.2]. Available from State Education Reforms Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform National Center for Education Statistics. (2008i). State requires parental notification of out-of-field teachers or has a ban or cap on number of out-of-field teachers, by state: 2007-2008 [Data table 3.5]. Available from State Education Reforms Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform National Center for Education Statistics. (2008j). Status of elementary, middle, and high school content standards in academic subjects, by state: 2007-2008 [Data table 1.1] Available from State Education Reforms Web site, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/statereform National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Education Association. (2006). NEA’s positive agenda for the ESEA reauthorization. Washington, DC: Author. National Education Association. (2008a). Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) status: School years 2005-06 to 2007-08. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.nea.org/lac/funding/images/NationalAYP.pdf National Education Association. (2008b). NCLB: Annual appropriations since enactment, fiscal years 2002-2009. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.nea.org/lac/funding/images/NCLBappropriations2002-09.pdf 339 National Education Association. (2008c). ESEA Title I-A grants: Funding promised in the law vs. funding actually received, FY 2002-2009.. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.nea.org/lac/funding/images/NCLBfundinggap2002-09.pdf National Education Association. (2008d). Funding Gap: No Child Left Behind funding promised in the law vs. funding actually received, FY 2002-2009. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.nea.org/lac/funding/images/fundinggap.pdf National Education Association. (2009). Urge congress to support bills to improve NCLB. Retrieved January 11, 2009, from http://www.nea.org/recommendations/billstoimprovenclb.html National Governors Association. (2008). Benchmarking for success: Ensuring U.S. students receive a world-class education. Washington, DC: Author. Neild, R.C. (2005). Parent management of school choice in a large urban district. Urban Education, 40(3), 270-297. Neill, M. (2008), Beyond NCLB. Rethinking Schools, 22(3), Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/22_03/beyo223.shtml Neill, M.W. (2006). Highly qualified teachers: Provisions, problems, and prospects. Catalyst for Change, 34(2), 3-10. Nichols, S.L., & Berliner, DC (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Press. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107-110, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act: Education actions may help improve implementation and evaluation of supplemental educational services, Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education, Committee on Education and Labor, 110th Cong.(2007, March 23)(testimony of Cornelia M. Ashby). Noblit, G.W. (2007). Class-déclassé. In J.A. Van Galen & G.W. Noblit (Eds.), Late to class: Social class and schooling in the new economy (pp. 313-346 ). New York: State University of New York Press. Noddings, N. (2007). When school reform goes wrong. New York: Teachers College Press. Noguera, P.A. (2001). Transforming urban schools through investments in the social capital of parents. In S. Saegert, J.P. Thompson, & M.R. Warren (Eds.), Social capital and poor communities (pp. 189-212). New York: Russell Sage Foundation Press. 340 Obama, B.H. “Inaugural Address, 2009.” Retrieved January 21, 2009, from http://www.whitehouse.gov Oehlberg, B.E. (2006). Reaching and teaching stressed and anxious learners in grades 48: Strategies for relieving distress and trauma in schools and classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Office of Inspector General, United States Department of Education. (2006). The Reading First Program’s grant application process: Final inspection report. Washington, DC: Author. Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; Consolidated State Applications Under Section 9302 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Notice of Final Requirements, 67 Fed. Reg. 35,967-35,980 (May 22, 2002). Ogbu, J.U. (1987). Variability in minority responses to schooling: Nonimmigrants vs. immigrants. In G. Spindler, & L. Spindler (Eds.), Interpretive ethnography of education: At home and abroad (pp. 255-280). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ohanian, S. (2000). Goals 2000: What’s in a name?. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(5), 344-355. Olebe, M. (2001). A decade of support for California’s new teachers: The Beginning teacher Support and Assessment Program. Teacher Education Quarterly, 28(1), 85-109. Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2004). Brown at 50: King’s dream or Plessy’s nightmare? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Harvard Civil Rights Project. Owens, A., & Sunderman, G.L. (2006). School accountability under NCLB: Aid or obstacle for measuring racial equity?. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Paige, R. (2006). No Child Left Behind: The ongoing movement for public education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 461-473. Participation in Education Department Programs by Religious Organizations; Providing for Equal Treatment of All Education Program Participants, Final Regulations, 69 Fed. Reg. 31,708-31,715 (June 4, 2004)(to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 74, 75, 76, & 80) Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Pearson, J. (1993). Myths of educational choice. Westport, CT: Praeger. 341 Perez Huber, L., Lopez, C., Malagon, M., Velez, V. & Solorzano, D. (2008). Getting beyond the 'symptom,' acknowledging the 'disease': Theorizing racist nativism. Contemporary Justice Review, 11(1), 39-51. Perlmann, J. (2005). Italians then, Mexicans now: Immigrant origins and second generation progress 1890-2000. New York: Russell Sage Foundation and the Levy Institute. Phelps, R. P. (2005). Persistently positive: Forty years of public opinion on standardized testing. In R. P. Phelps (Ed.), Defending standardized testing (pp. 1-22). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Phi Delta Kappa. (2008). Highlights of the 40th PDK/Gallup poll. Bloomington, IN: Author. Polanyi, M. (1974). Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1958) Pontiac School District v. Secretary of the United States Department of Education, No. 05-2708, 512 F.3d 252, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 198 (6th Cir. Jan. 7, 2008). Popham, W.J. (2004, July). Ruminations regarding NCLB’s most malignant provision: Adequate yearly progress. Paper prepared for a forum on No Child Left Behind sponsored by the Center on Education Policy, Washington, DC. Popham, W.J. (2005). America’s “failing” schools: How parents and teachers can cope with No Child Left Behind. New York: Routledge. Portes, A., & Fernández-Kelly, P. (2008). No margin for error: Educational and occupational achievement among disadvantaged children of immigrants. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 620, 12-36. Prasad, P. (2005). Crafting qualitative research: Working in the postpositivist traditions. London: M.E. Sharpe. Public Education Network. (2006). Open to the public: The public speaks out on "No Child Left Behind": A summary of nine hearings, September 2005-January 2006. Washington, DC (Eric Document Reproduction Service No. ED491638) Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999. California Education Code § 52050-52050.5 Ravitch, D. (1993a). Critical issues in the office of educational research and improvement. In J.F. Jennings (Ed.), National issues in education: The past is prologue (pp. 99-109 ). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa International. 342 Ravitch, D. (1993b). Launching a revolution in standards and assessments. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(10), 767-772. Ravitch, D. (2000). Left back: A century of failed school reforms. New York: Simon and Schuster. Reitzug, U.C., West, D.L., & Angel, R. (2008). Conceptualizing instructional leadership: The voices of principals. Education and Urban Society, 40(6), 694-714. Riddle, W.C. (2006, August 31). Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Riddle, W.C. (2007, April 20). The No Child Left Behind Act: An overview of reauthorization issues for the 110th Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Riddle, W.C., Apling, R.N., Cooper, E.F., Irwin, P.M., Kuenzi, J.J., McCallion, G., et al. (2007, January 9). K-12 education: Highlights of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 P.L. 107-110 (Publication No. RL31284). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Robinson, K.B. (2008). No Child Left Behind accountability: Merely reaching standards limits the promise of the gifted. Dissertations Abstracts International, Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68(11-A), 4666. (UMI No. AA13292163) Rodríguez, L.F., & Conchas, G.Q. (2009). Preventing truancy and dropout among urban middle school youth. Education and Urban Society, 41(2), 216-247. Rossell, C. (2005). Making uneven strides: State standards for achieving English Language Proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act. Arlington, VA: Lexington Institute. Rotermund, S. (2008a). When do California students drop out of school? Santa Barbara, CA: California Dropout Research Project. Rotermund, S. (2008b). Which California school districts have the most dropouts? Santa Barbara, CA: California Dropout Research Project. Rothstein, R. (2008). Leaving “No Child Left Behind” behind: Our no. 1 education program is incoherent, unworkable, and doomed but the next president still can have a huge impact on improving American schooling. The American Prospect, 50-54. Rumberger, R.W., & Lim, S.A. (2008). Why students drop out of school: A review of 25 years of research. Santa Barbara, CA: California Dropout Research Project. 343 Sacks, P. (2001), Standardized minds: The high price of America’s testing culture and what we can do to change it. New York: Da Capo Press. Saltman, K.J. (2007). Capitalizing on disaster: Taking and breaking public schools. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Schaffer, B., & Hoekstra, P. (2007, April 25). Educational freedom in the wake of No Child Left Behind (Issue Brief No. 1016). Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation. School to Work Opportunities Act, Public Law No. 103-239. Schoen, L., & Fusarelli, L.D. (2008). Innovation, NCLB, and the fear factor: The challenge of leading 21st-century schools in an era of accountability. Educational Policy, 22(1), 181-203. Schulte, A., Villwock, D.V., Whichard, S.M., & Stallings, C. (2001). High-stakes and expected progress standards for students with learning disabilities: A five-year study of one district. School Psychology Review, 30, 487-506. Seligman, M. (2002). Authentic happiness. New York: Free Press. Selwyn, D. (2007). Highly qualified teachers: NCLB and teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(2), 124-137. Shannon, P. (2004). God’s latest plan for education. In K. Goodman, Y. Goodman, R. Rapoport, & P. Shannon (Eds.), Saving our schools: The case for public education saying no to ‘No Child Left Behind’ (pp. 66-75). Berkeley, CA: RDR Books. Shealey, M.W. (2006). The promises and perils of “scientifically based” research for urban schools. Urban Education, 41(1), 5-19. Shields, P., Esch, C., Young, V., & Humphrey, D. (2000). White paper on teacher induction. A report for the Walter S. Johnson Foundation. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Short, D.J., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2004). Double the work- challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners: A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Silver, D., Saunders, M., & Zarate, E. (2008). What factors predict high school graduation in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Santa Barbara, CA: California Dropout Research Project. 344 Simmons, R.G., & Blyth, D.A. (1987). Moving into adolescence: the impact of pubertal change and school context. Hawthorn, NY: Aldine de Gruyter. Smith, C., & Krohn, M.D. (1995). Delinquency and family life among male adolescents: The role of ethnicity. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 69-93. Smole, D.P. (2004, February 24). Supplemental educational services for children from low-income families under ESEA Title I-A (Publication No. RL31329) Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Snell, L. No choices left behind: Competitive models to restructure California’s lowest performing schools. Los Angeles, CA: Reason Foundation. Solkovits, G. (2009, January 13). Comments on reduction in force at LAUSD school board meeting. Retrieved January 13, 2009, from http://www.utla.net/node/2057 Spitser, A. (2007). School reconstitution under No Child Left Behind: Why school officials should think twice. UCLA Law Review, 54, 1339-1383. Spring, J. (2007a). The American school: From the puritans to No Child Left Behind (7th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill. Spring, J. (2007b). Deculturization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Stanton-Salazar, R. (1997). A social capital framework for understanding the socialization of racial minority children and youths. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1), 1-40. State Education Data Center. (2008a). Community demographics community profile [Data file]. Available from Council of Chief State School Officers Web site, http://www.schooldatadirect.org State Education Data Center. (2008b). Enrollment of students with special needs 2006 [Data file]. Available from Council of Chief State School Officers Web site, http://www.schooldatadirect.org State Education Data Center. (2008c). School environment class size [Data file]. Available from Council of Chief State School Officers Web site, http://www.schooldatadirect.org State Education Data Center. (2008d). Student performance key data [Data file]. Available from Council of Chief State School Officers Web site, http://www.schooldatadirect.org 345 State of Connecticut v. Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education, No. 3 05cv1330MRK, 453 F.Supp.2d 459, 468 2008 U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut LEXIS 69552 (D. Conn. April 28, 2008). Stedman, J.B., & Riddle, W.C. (1998, February 17). Goals 2000: Educate America Act implementation status and issues (Publication No. 95-502 EPW). Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Stewart, D.W., Shamdasani, P.N., & Rook, D.W. (2007). Focus groups: Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Stiefel, L., Schwartz, A.E., & Chellman, C.C. (2007). So many children left behind: Segregation and the impact of subgroup reporting in No Child Left Behind on the racial test score gap. Educational Policy, 21(3), 527-550. Stone, C.N., Henig, J.R., Jones, B.D., & Pierannunzi, C. (2001). Building civic capacity: The politics of reforming urban schools. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. Street, P. (2008, December 25). Arne Duncan and neoliberal racism: Another surprising Obama appointment. Retrieved January 1, 2009, from http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/20050 Strong, M., & St. John, L. (2002). A study of teacher retention: Mentoring for beginning teachers. Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center, University of California Santa Cruz. Suárez-Orozco, C., & Suárez-Orozco, M. (1995). Transformations: Migration, family life, and achievement motivation among Latino adolescents. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Sunderman, G.L. (2006). The Unraveling of No Child Left Behind: How negotiated changes transformed the law. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University. Sunderman, G.L. (2007a). Do supplemental educational services increase opportunities for minority students?. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 117-119. Sunderman, G.L. (2007b). Supplemental educational services under NCLB: Charting implementation. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Superfine, B.M. (2008). The courts and standards based reform. New York: Oxford University Press USA. 346 Talbert-Johnson, C. (2006). Preparing highly qualified teachers for urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 39(1), 147-160. Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2001). 2001 State special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 68,698-68708 (December 9, 2003)(to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 200) Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Final Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 64,436-64,513 (October 29, 2008)(to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 200). Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) —Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities, Final Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 17,748-17,781 (April 9, 2007)(to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 200 & pt. 300) Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Notice of Final Interpretations, 73 Fed. Reg. 61,828-61844 (October 17, 2008) Triplett, C.F., Barksdale, M.A., & Leftwich, P. (2003). Children’s perceptions of high stakes testing. Journal of Research in Education, 13(1), 15-21. United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved May 1, 2008 from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm United Teachers Los Angeles. (2009). Periodic assessment boycott. Retrieved February 2, 2009, from http://www.utla.net/pab University of North Carolina Center for Civil Rights. (2005). The socioeconomic composition of public schools: A crucial consideration in student assignment policy. Chapel Hill, NC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (1991). America 2000: An education strategy sourcebook. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (1993). The national education goals report 1993: Building a nation of learners. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Progress of Education in the United States of America: 1990 through 1994. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (1996). GOALS 2000: A Progress Report. Washington, DC: Author. 347 U.S. Department of Education. (2002a). Key policy letters signed by the education secretary or deputy secretary. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/020724.html U.S. Department of Education. (2002b). Press Release: President Bush unveils new guidance empowering faith-based and community groups to provide extra academic help to low-income students. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2002/12/12122002.html U.S. Department of Education (2002c). Status and trends in the education of Hispanics. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Education Statistics. U.S. Department of Education. (2003, March 10). Standards and assessments: Nonregulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2004, February 6). Public school choice: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2004, March 1). Title I paraprofessionals: Nonregulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2004, April 23). Parental involvement Title I, Part A: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2005, June 13). Supplemental educational services: Nonregulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2005a). Raising achievement: A new path for No Child Left Behind. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/raising/new-path-long.html U.S. Department of Education. (2005b). Secretary announces growth model pilot, addresses chief state school officers’ annual policy forum in Richmond. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/11/11182005.html U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Answering the challenge of a changing world: Strengthening education for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2006, March 5). Title I, Part D Neglected, Delinquent, and At-risk Youth Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children and Youth Who are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-risk (N or D): Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author. 348 U.S. Department of Education. (2006, July 21). LEA and school improvement: Nonregulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Building on results: A blueprint for strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2008a). A commitment to quality: National charter school policy forum report. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2008b). Differentiated accountability: A more nuanced system to better target resources. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/differentiated/factsheet03.html U.S. Department of Education. (2008, December 22). High school graduation rate: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2009a). Great expectations: holding ourselves and our schools accountable for results. Washington, DC: Author. U.S. Department of Education. (2009b). Secretary Spellings approves additional growth model pilots for 2008-2009 school year. Retrieved January 11, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/01/01082009a.html U.S.A. PATRIOT Act of 2001, Public Law No. 107-56. Uzzell, L.A. (2005, May 31). No Child Left Behind: The dangers of centralized education policy (Issue Brief No. 544). Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. New York: State University of New York Press. Valenzuela, A. (2005). Accountability and the privatization agenda. In A. Valenzuela (Ed.), Leaving children behind: How “Texas-style” accountability fails Latino youth (pp. 263-294). New York: State University of New York Press. Vandenberghe, V. (1999). Combining market and bureaucratic control in education: An answer to market and bureaucratic failure?. Comparative Education, 35(3), 271282. Veenema, T.G. (2001). Children’s exposure to community violence. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 33, 167-173. Vélez-Pastrana, M.C., González-Rodríguez, R., & Borges-Hernández, A. (2005). Family functioning and early onset of sexual intercourse in Latino adolescents. Adolescence, 40, 777-791. 349 Veltri, B.T. (2008). Teaching or service? The site based realities of Teach for America teachers in poor, urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 40(5), 511-542. Vergari, S. (2007). The politics of charter schools. Educational Policy, 21(1), 15-39. Waldinger, R. (2007). Did manufacturing matter? The experience of yesterday’s second generation. International Migration Review, 41, 3-39. Waldinger, R., & Perlmann, J. (1998). Second generations: Past, present, future. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 24, 5-24. Wamba, N.G., & Ascher, C. (2003). An examination of charter school equity. Education and Urban Society, 35(4), 462-476. Wayson, W.W. (1999). Charter schools: Franchise for creativity or license for fractionation? Education and Urban Society, 3I(4), 446-464. Weisberg, R.W. (2006). Creativity: Understanding innovation in problem solving, science, invention, and the arts. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Wenz-Gross, M., Siperstein, G.N., Untch, A.S., & Widaman, K.F. (1997). Stress, social support, and adjustments of adolescents in middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17(2), 129-151. White, K.W., & Rosenbaum, J.E. (2008). Inside the black box of accountability: How high-stakes accountability alters school culture and the classification and treatment of students and teachers. In A.R. Sadovnik, J.A. O’Day, G.W. Bohrnstedt. & K.M. Borman (Eds.), No Child Left Behind and the reduction of the achievement gap: Sociological perspectives on federal education policy (pp. 97116). New York: Routledge. The White House. (2008, December 11). Fact sheet: President Bush has improved the lives of America’s youth. Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/12/20081211-6.html The White House. (2009, February 14). The Agenda: Education. Retrieved February 14, 2009, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/education White House Faith Based and Community Initiatives. (2006). WHOFBCI Accomplishments in 2006. Retrieved May 1, 2007 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/fbci/2006_accomplishments.html Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S., MacIver, D., Reuman, D.A., & Midgley, C. (1991). Transitions during early adolescence: Changes in children’s domain specific self-perceptions and general self-esteem across the transition to junior high school. Developmental Psychology, 27, 552-565. 350 Wilson, S.F. (2005). Realizing the promise of brand-name schools. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brookings Papers on Education Policy: 2005 (pp.89-135). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Winship, G, & Repper, J. (2007). Focus group research: The role of cacophony in dialogical democracy. Group Analysis: The Journal of Group Analytic Psychotherapy, 40(1), 125-139. Wraga, W.G. (2009) Toward a connected core curriculum. Educational Horizons, 87(2), 88-96. Wright, W.E. (2002). The effects of high-stakes testing on an inner-city elementary school: The curriculum, the teachers, and the English language learners. Current Issues in Education, 5(5). Retrieved December 25, 2008, from http://cie.asu.edu/volume5/number5 Yeh, S.S. (2006). Reforming federal testing policy to support teaching and learning. Educational Policy, 20(3), 495-524. Yell, M.L., Katsiyannas, A., & Shiner, J.G. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 32-39. Ysseldyke, J., Nelson, R.J., Christenson, S., Johnson, D.R., Dennison, A., & Triezenberg, H., Sharpe, M., & Hawes, M. (2004). What we know and need to know about the consequences of high-stakes testing for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 75-94. Zeichner, K.M. (2003). The adequacies and inadequacies of three current strategies to recruit, prepare and train the best teachers for all students. Teacher College Record, 105(4), 490-519. Zeidner, M. (1998). Test anxiety: The state of the art. New York: Plenum Press. Ziebarth, T. (2004). State policies for school restructuring. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Razquin, P., Booker, K., Lockwood, J.R., Vernez, G., et al. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume I— Title I school choice, supplemental educational services, and student achievement. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. (Document No. RP-1265) 351 Appendix A Glossary of Terms Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): According to NCLB, AYP: ‘‘(C) DEFINITION.—‘Adequate yearly progress’ shall be defined by the State in a manner that— ‘‘(i) applies the same high standards of academic achievement to all public elementary school and secondary school students in the State; ‘‘(ii) is statistically valid and reliable; ‘‘(iii) results in continuous and substantial academic improvement for all students; ‘‘(iv) measures the progress of public elementary schools, secondary schools and local educational agencies and the State based primarily on the academic assessments described in paragraph (3); ‘‘(v) includes separate measurable annual objectives for continuous and substantial improvement for each of the following: ‘‘(I) The achievement of all public elementary school and secondary school students. ‘‘(II) The achievement of— ‘‘(aa) economically disadvantaged students; ‘‘(bb) students from major racial and ethnic groups; ‘‘(cc) students with disabilities; and ‘(dd) students with limited English proficiency; except that disaggregation of data under subclause (II) shall not be required in a case in which the number of students in a category is insufficient to yield statistically reliable information or the results would reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student; ‘‘(vi) in accordance with subparagraph (D), includes graduation rates for public secondary school students (defined as the percentage of students who graduate from secondary school with a regular diploma in the standard number of years) and at least one other academic indicator, as determined by the State for all public elementary school students; and ‘‘(vii) in accordance with subparagraph (D), at the State’s discretion, may also include other academic indicators, as determined by the State for all public school students, measured separately for each group described in clause (v), such as achievement on additional State or locally administered assessments, decreases in grade-to-grade retention rates, attendance rates, and changes in the percentages of students completing gifted and talented, advanced placement, and college 352 preparatory courses. (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(C)) AMERICA 2000 (An Education Strategy): Under the George H.W. Bush administration, according to the U.S. Department of Education (1991), AMERICA 2000: It is a bold, complex, and long-range plan to move every community in America toward the national education goals adopted by the president and the governors. (preface: “A Message from the Secretary”). It is an action plan to move America toward the six national education goals through a populist crusade, by assuring accountability in today's schools, unleashing America's genius to jump start a new generation of American schools, transforming a "Nation at Risk" into a "Nation of Students" and nurturing the family and community values essential to personal responsibility, strong schools and sound education for all children. (p. 35) According to USDE (1991) AMERICA 2000 Communities are: Communities, designated by the governors, that meet the president's four-part challenge : that (1)adopt the six national education goals for themselves, (2) create a community-wide plan for achieving them, (3) develop a Report Card to measure their progress, and (4) demonstrate their readiness to create and support a New American School . 535+ such communities will open New American Schools by 1996. (p. 35) According to the California State Board of Education and Superintendent of Public Instruction (2006) the BTSA induction program: provides formative assessment, individualized support, and advanced content for newly credentialed, beginning teachers, thereby ensuring a highly qualified teacher in every California classroom. (p.41) According to NCLB challenging academic standards: ‘‘(D) CHALLENGING ACADEMIC STANDARDS.— Standards under this paragraph shall include— ‘‘(i) challenging academic content standards in academic subjects that— ‘‘(I) specify what children are expected to know and be able to do; ‘‘(II) contain coherent and rigorous content; and ‘‘(III) encourage the teaching of advanced skills; and ‘‘(ii) challenging student academic achievement standards that— ‘‘(I) are aligned with the State’s academic content standards; ‘‘(II) describe two levels of high achievement (proficient and advanced) that determine how well children are mastering the AMERICA 2000 Communities: Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program (BTSA): Challenging Academic Standards: 353 material in the State academic content standards; and ‘‘(III) describe a third level of achievement (basic) to provide complete information about the progress of the lower-achieving children toward mastering the proficient and advanced levels of achievement.(20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(D)) Charter School: According to NCLB a charter school: ‘‘(1) CHARTER SCHOOL.—The term ‘charter school’ means a public school that— ‘‘(A) in accordance with a specific State statute authorizing the granting of charters to schools, is exempt from significant State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools, but not from any rules relating to the other requirements of this paragraph; ‘‘(B) is created by a developer as a public school, or is adapted by a developer from an existing public school, and is operated under public supervision and direction; ‘‘(C) operates in pursuit of a specific set of educational objectives determined by the school’s developer and agreed to by the authorized public chartering agency; ‘‘(D) provides a program of elementary or secondary education, or both; ‘‘(E) is nonsectarian in its programs, admissions policies, employment practices, and all other operations, and is not affiliated with a sectarian school or religious institution; ‘‘(F) does not charge tuition; ‘‘(G) complies with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; ‘‘(H) is a school to which parents choose to send their children, and that admits students on the basis of a lottery, if more students apply for admission than can be accommodated; ‘‘(I) agrees to comply with the same Federal and State audit requirements as do other elementary schools and secondary schools in the State, unless such requirements are specifically waived for the purpose of this program; ‘‘(J) meets all applicable Federal, State, and local health and safety requirements; ‘‘(K) operates in accordance with State law; and ‘‘(L) has a written performance contract with the authorized public chartering agency in the State that includes a description of how student performance will be measured in charter schools pursuant to State assessments that are required of other schools and pursuant to any other assessments mutually agreeable to the 354 authorized public chartering agency and the charter school ‘‘(2) DEVELOPER.—The term ‘developer’ means an individual or group of individuals (including a public or private nonprofit organization), which may include teachers, administrators and other school staff, parents, or other members of the local community in which a charter school project will be carried out. ‘‘(3) ELIGIBLE APPLICANT.—The term ‘eligible applicant’ means a developer that has— ‘‘(A) applied to an authorized public chartering authority to operate a charter school; and ‘‘(B) provided adequate and timely notice to that authority under section 5203(d)(3). ‘‘(4) AUTHORIZED PUBLIC CHARTERING AGENCY.— The term ‘authorized public chartering agency’ means a State educational agency, local educational agency, or other public entity that has the authority pursuant to State law and approved by the Secretary to authorize or approve a charter school. (20 U.S.C. § 722li) Child with a Disability: According to NCLB a child with a disability is: ‘‘(5) CHILD WITH A DISABILITY.—The term ‘child with a disability’ has the same meaning given that term in section 602 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (20 U.S.C. § 7801(5)) According to NCLB a community based organization: (6) COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATION.—The term ‘community-based organization’ means a public or private nonprofit organization of demonstrated effectiveness that— ‘‘(A) is representative of a community or significant segments of a community; and ‘‘(B) provides educational or related services to individuals in the community. (20 U.S.C. § 7801(6)(A)-(B)) According to Goals 2000, content standards: (4) the term ‘‘content standards’’ means broad descriptions of the knowledge and skills students should acquire in a particular subject area (H.R. 1804 § 3(a)(4)) According to NCLB, core academic subjects: ‘‘(11) CORE ACADEMIC SUBJECTS.—The term ‘core academic subjects’ means English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography. (20 U.S.C. § 7801(11)) Community Based Organization: Content Standards: Core Academic Subjects: 355 Corrective Action: ‘‘(7) CORRECTIVE ACTION.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—In this subsection, the term ‘corrective action’ means action, consistent with State law, that— ‘‘(i) substantially and directly responds to— ‘‘(I) the consistent academic failure of a school that caused the local educational agency to take such action; and ‘‘(II) any underlying staffing, curriculum, or other problems in the school; and ‘‘(ii) is designed to increase substantially the likelihood that each group of students described in 1111(b)(2)(C) enrolled in the school identified for corrective action will meet or exceed the State’s proficient levels of achievement on the State academic assessments described in section 1111(b)(3). ‘‘(B) SYSTEM.—In order to help students served under this part meet challenging State student academic achievement standards, each local educational agency shall implement a system of corrective action in accordance with subparagraphs (C) through (E). ‘‘(C) ROLE OF LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.—In the case of any school served by a local educational agency under this part that fails to make adequate yearly progress, as defined by the State under section 1111(b)(2), by the end of the second full school year after the identification under paragraph (1), the local educational agency shall— ‘‘(i) continue to provide all students enrolled in the school with the option to transfer to another public school served by the local educational agency, in accordance with paragraph (1)(E) and (F); ‘‘(ii) continue to provide technical assistance consistent with paragraph (4) while instituting any corrective action under clause (iv); ‘‘(iii) continue to make supplemental educational services available, in accordance with subsection (e), to children who remain in the school; and ‘‘(iv) identify the school for corrective action and take at least one of the following corrective actions: ‘‘(I) Replace the school staff who are relevant to the failure to make adequate yearly progress. ‘‘(II) Institute and fully implement a new curriculum, including providing appropriate professional development for all relevant staff, that is based on scientifically based research and offers substantial promise of improving educational achievement for low-achieving students and enabling the school to make adequate yearly progress. ‘‘(III) Significantly decrease management authority at the school level. 356 ‘‘(IV) Appoint an outside expert to advise the school on its progress toward making adequate yearly progress, based on its school plan under paragraph (3). ‘‘(V) Extend the school year or school day for the school. ‘‘(VI) Restructure the internal organizational structure of the school. ‘‘(D) DELAY.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the local educational agency may delay, for a period not to exceed 1 year, implementation of the requirements under paragraph (5), corrective action under this paragraph, or restructuring under paragraph (8) if the school makes adequate yearly progress for 1 year or if its failure to make adequate yearly progress is due to exceptional or uncontrollable circumstances, such as a natural disaster or a precipitous and unforeseen decline in the financial resources of the local educational agency or school. No such period shall be taken into account in determining the number of consecutive years of failure to make adequate yearly progress. ‘‘(E) PUBLICATION AND DISSEMINATION.—The local educational agency shall publish and disseminate information regarding any corrective action the local educational agency takes under this paragraph at a school— ‘‘(i) to the public and to the parents of each student enrolled in the school subject to corrective action; ‘‘(ii) in an understandable and uniform format and, to the extent practicable, provided in a language that the parents can understand; and ‘‘(iii) through such means as the Internet, the media, and public agencies. (20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(7)) Elementary School: According to NCLB, an elementary school: ‘‘(18) ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.—The term ‘elementary school’ means a nonprofit institutional day or residential school, including a public elementary charter school, that provides elementary education, as determined under State law. (20 U.S.C. § 7801(18)) According to NCLB an exemplary teacher: ‘‘(19) EXEMPLARY TEACHER.—The term ‘exemplary teacher’ means a teacher who— ‘‘(A) is a highly qualified teacher such as a master teacher; ‘‘(B) has been teaching for at least 5 years in a public or private school or institution of higher education; ‘‘(C) is recommended to be an exemplary teacher by administrators and other teachers who are knowledgeable about the individual’s performance; Exemplary Teacher: 357 ‘‘(D) is currently teaching and based in a public school; and ‘‘(E) assists other teachers in improving instructional strategies, improves the skills of other teachers, performs teacher mentoring, develops curricula, and offers other professional development. (20 U.S.C. § 7801(19) (A)-(E)) Extended-year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate: According to 73 Fed. Reg. 64,509, an Extended-year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate: (A) An extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate is defined as the number of students who graduate in four years or more with a regular high school diploma divided by the number of students who from the adjusted cohort for the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, provided that the adjustments account for any students who transfer into the cohort by the end of the year of graduation being considered minus the number of students who transfer out, emigrate to another country, or are deceased by the end of that year (as codified at 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b)(1)(v)) According to 73 Fed. Reg. 64,508, a Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate: (i)(A) A State must calculate a ‘‘four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate,’’ defined as the number of students who graduate in four years with a regular high school diploma divided by the number of students who form the adjusted cohort for that graduating class. (B) For those high schools that start after grade nine, the cohort must be calculated based on the earliest high school grade. (ii) The term ‘‘adjusted cohort’’ means the students who enter grade 9 (or the earliest high school grade) and any students who transfer into the cohort in grades 9 through 12 minus any students removed from the cohort. (A) The term ‘‘students who transfer into the cohort’’ means the students who enroll after the beginning of the entering cohort’s first year in high school, up to and including in grade 12. (B) To remove a student from the cohort, a school or LEA must confirm in writing that the student transferred out, emigrated to another country, or is deceased. (1) To confirm that a student transferred out, the school or LEA must have official written documentation that the student enrolled in another school or in an educational program that culminates in the award of a regular high school diploma. (2) A student who is retained in grade, enrolls in a General Educational Development (GED) program, or leaves school for any other reason may not be counted as having transferred out for the purpose of calculating graduation rate and must remain in the adjusted cohort. (codified at 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b)(1)(i)-(iv)) Four-Year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate: 358 Gifted and Talented: According to NCLB Gifted and Talented: ‘‘(22) GIFTED AND TALENTED.—The term ‘gifted and talented’, when used with respect to students, children, or youth, means students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievement capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities. (20 U.S.C. § 7801(22)) According to Goals 2000, the GOALS 2000 Educate America Act: The purpose of this Act is to provide a framework for meeting the National Education Goals established by title I of this Act by— (1) promoting coherent, nationwide, systemic education reform; (2) improving the quality of learning and teaching in the classroom and in the workplace; (3) defining appropriate and coherent Federal, State, and local roles and responsibilities for education reform and lifelong learning; (4) establishing valid and reliable mechanisms for— (A) building a broad national consensus on American education reform; (B) assisting in the development and certification of highquality, internationally competitive content and student performance standards; (C) assisting in the development and certification of opportunity-to-learn standards; and (D) assisting in the development and certification of high-quality assessment measures that reflect the internationally competitive content and student performance standards; (5) supporting new initiatives at the Federal, State, local, and school levels to provide equal educational opportunity for all students to meet high academic and occupational skill standards and to succeed in the world of employment and civic participation; (6) providing a framework for the reauthorization of all Federal education programs by— (A) creating a vision of excellence and equity that will guide all Federal education and related programs; (B) providing for the establishment of high-quality, internationally competitive content and student performance standards and strategies that all students will be expected to achieve; (C) providing for the establishment of high-quality, GOALS 2000 Educate America Act: 359 internationally competitive opportunity-to-learn standards that all States, local educational agencies, and schools should achieve; (D) encouraging and enabling all State educational agencies and local educational agencies to develop comprehensive improvement plans that will provide a coherent framework for the implementation of reauthorized Federal education and related programs in an integrated fashion that effectively educates all children to prepare them to participate fully as workers, parents, and citizens; (E) providing resources to help individual schools, including those serving students with high needs, develop and implement comprehensive improvement plans; and (F) promoting the use of technology to enable all students to achieve the National Education Goals; (7) stimulating the development and adoption of a voluntary national system of skill standards and certification to serve as a cornerstone of the national strategy to enhance workforce skills; and (8) assisting every elementary and secondary school that receives funds under this Act to actively involve parents and families in supporting the academic work of their children at home and in providing parents with skills to advocate for their children at school. (H.R. 1804 § 2) Highly Qualified Paraprofessional: According to NCLB, a Highly Qualified Paraprofessional: ‘‘(4) HIGHLY QUALIFIED PARAPROFESSIONAL.—The term ‘highly qualified paraprofessional’ means a paraprofessional who has not less than 2 years of— ‘‘(A) experience in a classroom; and ‘‘(B) postsecondary education or demonstrated competence in a field or academic subject for which there is a significant shortage of qualified teachers. (20 U.S.C. § 6602(4)(A)-(B)) According to NCLB, a highly qualified teacher: ‘‘(23) HIGHLY QUALIFIED.—The term ‘highly qualified’— ‘‘(A) when used with respect to any public elementary school or secondary school teacher teaching in a State, means that— ‘‘(i) the teacher has obtained full State certification as a teacher (including certification obtained through alternative routes to certification) or passed the State teacher licensing examination, and holds a license to teach in such State, except that when used with respect to any teacher teaching in a public charter school, the term means that the teacher meets the requirements set forth in the State’s public charter school law; and ‘‘(ii) the teacher has not had certification or licensure Highly Qualified Teacher: 360 requirements waived on an emergency, temporary, or provisional basis; ‘‘(B) when used with respect to— ‘‘(i) an elementary school teacher who is new to the profession, means that the teacher— ‘‘(I) holds at least a bachelor’s degree; and ‘‘(II) has demonstrated, by passing a rigorous State test, subject knowledge and teaching skills in reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of the basic elementary school curriculum (which may consist of passing a State-required certification or licensing test or tests in reading, writing, mathematics, and other areas of the basic elementary school curriculum); or ‘‘(ii) a middle or secondary school teacher who is new to the profession, means that the teacher holds at least a bachelor’s degree and has demonstrated a high level of competency in each of the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches by— ‘‘(I) passing a rigorous State academic subject test in each of the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches (which may consist of a passing level of performance on a State-required certification or licensing test or tests in each of the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches); or ‘‘(II) successful completion, in each of the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches, of an academic major, a graduate degree, coursework equivalent to an undergraduate academic major, or advanced certification or credentialing; and ‘‘(C) when used with respect to an elementary, middle, or secondary school teacher who is not new to the profession, means that the teacher holds at least a bachelor’s degree and— ‘‘(i) has met the applicable standard in clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (B), which includes an option for a test; or ‘‘(ii) demonstrates competence in all the academic subjects in which the teacher teaches based on a high objective uniform State standard of evaluation that— ‘‘(I) is set by the State for both grade appropriate academic subject matter knowledge and teaching skills; ‘‘(II) is aligned with challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards and developed in consultation with core content specialists, teachers, principals, and school administrators; ‘‘(III) provides objective, coherent information about the teacher’s attainment of core content knowledge in the academic subjects in which a teacher teaches; ‘‘(IV) is applied uniformly to all teachers in the same academic subject and the same grade level throughout the State; ‘‘(V) takes into consideration, but not be based primarily on, the time the teacher has been teaching in the academic subject; 361 ‘‘(VI) is made available to the public upon request; and ‘‘(VII) may involve multiple, objective measures of teacher competency. (20 U.S.C. § 7801(23)(A)-(C)) Limited English Proficient: According to NCLB Limited English Proficient: ‘‘(25) LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENT.—The term ‘limited English proficient’, when used with respect to an individual, means an individual— ‘‘(A) who is aged 3 through 21; ‘‘(B) who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school; ‘‘(C)(i) who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English; ‘‘(ii)(I) who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; and ‘‘(II) who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual’s level of English language proficiency; or ‘‘(iii) who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and ‘‘(D) whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual— ‘‘(i) the ability to meet the State’s proficient level of achievement on State assessments described in section 1111(b)(3); ‘‘(ii) the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or ‘‘(iii) the opportunity to participate fully in society. (20 U.S.C. § 7801(25)(A)-(D)) According to NCLB, a Local Education Agency: ‘‘(26) LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.— ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘local educational agency’ means a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State for either administrative control or direction of, or to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or of or for a combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools. (20 U.S.C. § 7801(26)(A)) Local Education Agency: 362 Measurable Objectives: According to NCLB, measurable objectives: ‘‘(G) MEASURABLE OBJECTIVES.—Each State shall establish statewide annual measurable objectives, pursuant to subparagraph (C)(v), for meeting the requirements of this paragraph, and which— ‘‘(i) shall be set separately for the assessments of mathematics and reading or language arts under subsection (a)(3); ‘‘(ii) shall be the same for all schools and local educational agencies in the State; ‘‘(iii) shall identify a single minimum percentage of students who are required to meet or exceed the proficient level on the academic assessments that applies separately to each group of students described in subparagraph (C)(v); ‘‘(iv) shall ensure that all students will meet or exceed the State’s proficient level of academic achievement on the State assessments within the State’s timeline under subparagraph (F); and ‘‘(v) may be the same for more than 1 year, subject to the requirements of subparagraph (H). (20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(2)(G)) According to the NCES (2008a): NAEP is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America’s students know and can do in various subject areas; In addition, NAEP has two types of assessments, main NAEP and long-term trend NAEP. Main NAEP assessments are conducted in a range of subjects with fourth-, eighth-, and twelfth graders across the country. Assessments are given most frequently in mathematics, reading, science, and writing. Other subjects, such as the arts, civics, economics, geography, and U.S. history, are assessed periodically. NATIONAL: all NAEP assessments provide national results. STATE: at 4th and 8th grades mathematics, reading, science, and writing have state results. States are required to participate in reading and mathematics every other year. Some 12th grade state results will be available after a pilot study in 2009.DISTRICT: under a trial program, NAEP assessments are conducted in selected large urban districts and results are available at the district level. Long-term trend NAEP measures student performance in reading and mathematics, using some questions repeatedly to ensure comparability across the years. The long-term trend assessment allows the performance of today’s students to be compared with those from more than 30 years ago. The assessment is administered to 9-, 13-, and 17year-olds every four years. (p. 3) National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP): 363 New American Schools Development Corporation: According to the USDE (1991) the New American Schools Development Corporation is: A nonprofit, non-governmental organization, created by American business leaders and other private citizens, which will receive funds, sponsor a competition and establish, support and monitor three to seven R & D Teams . The mission of these teams is to help AMERICA 2000 Communities invent and create their own new American schools. (p. 36) According to the California State Board of Education and State Superintendent of Public Instruction (2006), National Board Certification: provides a rigorous measure for experienced teachers through sets of standards that describe the accomplished teaching. Over the course of a school year, candidates for National certification must create a portfolio of their teaching and sit for an assessment of their content knowledge. National Board certification is available in more than 24 certificate areas, defined by a student age range and the content taught. Teachers seeking National Board Certified (NBCT) status often create small learning communities as they develop their portfolios. The National Board certification process requires teachers to examine their practice and provides the opportunity to address apparent weaknesses. The process can take up to three years for teachers who discover a weakness that must be addressed. National Board certification is the epitome of a long-term, meaningful professional development. Approximately one percent of all California teachers are NBCTs. (p. 40) According to Goals 2000, National Education Goals: The Congress declares that the National Education Goals are the following: (1) SCHOOL READINESS.—(A) By the year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to learn. (B) The objectives for this goal are that— (i) all children will have access to high-quality and developmentally appropriate preschool programs that help prepare children for school; (ii) every parent in the United States will be a child’s first teacher and devote time each day to helping such parent’s preschool child learn, and parents will have access to the training and support parents need; and (iii) children will receive the nutrition, physical activity experiences, and health care needed to arrive at school with healthy minds and bodies, and to maintain the mental alertness necessary to be prepared to learn, and the number of low-birthweight babies will be significantly reduced National Board Certification: National Education Goals: 364 through enhanced prenatal health systems. (2) SCHOOL COMPLETION.—(A) By the year 2000, the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent. (B) The objectives for this goal are that— (i) the Nation must dramatically reduce its school dropout rate, and 75 percent of the students who do drop out will successfully complete a high school degree or its equivalent; and (ii) the gap in high school graduation rates between American students from minority backgrounds and their non-minority counterparts will be eliminated. (3) STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND CITIZENSHIP.—(A) By the year 2000, all students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography, and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our Nation’s modern economy. (B) The objectives for this goal are that— (i) the academic performance of all students at the elementary and secondary level will increase significantly in every quartile, and the distribution of minority students in each quartile will more closely reflect the student population as a whole; (ii) the percentage of all students who demonstrate the ability to reason, solve problems, apply knowledge, and write and communicate effectively will increase substantially; (iii) all students will be involved in activities that promote and demonstrate good citizenship, good health, community service, and personal responsibility; (iv) all students will have access to physical education and health education to ensure they are healthy and fit; (v) the percentage of all students who are competent in more than one language will substantially increase; and (vi) all students will be knowledgeable about the diverse cultural heritage of this Nation and about the world community. (4) TEACHER EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.— (A) By the year 2000, the Nation’s teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century. (B) The objectives for this goal are that— (i) all teachers will have access to preservice teacher education 365 and continuing professional development activities that will provide such teachers with the knowledge and skills needed to teach to an increasingly diverse student population with a variety of educational, social, and health needs; (ii) all teachers will have continuing opportunities to acquire additional knowledge and skills needed to teach challenging subject matter and to use emerging new methods, forms of assessment, and technologies; (iii) States and school districts will create integrated strategies to attract, recruit, prepare, retrain, and support the continued professional development of teachers, administrators, and other educators, so that there is a highly talented work force of professional educators to teach challenging subject matter; and (iv) partnerships will be established, whenever possible, among local educational agencies, institutions of higher education, parents, and local labor, business, and professional associations to provide and support programs for the professional development of educators. (5) MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE.—(A) By the year 2000, United States students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement. (B) The objectives for this goal are that— (i) mathematics and science education, including the metric system of measurement, will be strengthened throughout the system, especially in the early grades; (ii) the number of teachers with a substantive background in mathematics and science, including the metric system of measurement, will increase by 50 percent; and (iii) the number of United States undergraduate and graduate students, especially women and minorities, who complete degrees in mathematics, science, and engineering will increase significantly. (6) ADULT LITERACY AND LIFELONG LEARNING.—(A) By the year 2000, every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. (B) The objectives for this goal are that— (i) every major American business will be involved in strengthening the connection between education and work; (ii) all workers will have the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills, from basic to highly technical, needed to adapt to emerging new technologies, work methods, and markets through public and private educational, vocational, technical, workplace, or other programs; (iii) the number of quality programs, including those at libraries, 366 that are designed to serve more effectively the needs of the growing number of part-time and midcareer students will increase substantially; (iv) the proportion of the qualified students, especially minorities, who enter college, who complete at least two years, and who complete their degree programs will increase substantially; (v) the proportion of college graduates who demonstrate an advanced ability to think critically, communicate effectively, and solve problems will increase substantially; and (vi) schools, in implementing comprehensive parent involvement programs, will offer more adult literacy, parent training and lifelong learning opportunities to improve the ties between home and school, and enhance parents’ work and home lives. (7) SAFE, DISCIPLINED, AND ALCOHOL- AND DRUGFREE SCHOOLS.— (A) By the year 2000, every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning. (B) The objectives for this goal are that— (i) every school will implement a firm and fair policy on use, possession, and distribution of drugs and alcohol; (ii) parents, businesses, governmental and community organizations will work together to ensure the rights of students to study in a safe and secure environment that is free of drugs and crime, and that schools provide a healthy environment and are a safe haven for all children; (iii) every local educational agency will develop and implement a policy to ensure that all schools are free of violence and the unauthorized presence of weapons; (iv) every local educational agency will develop a sequential, comprehensive kindergarten through twelfth grade drug and alcohol prevention education program; (v) drug and alcohol curriculum should be taught as an integral part of sequential, comprehensive health education; (vi) community-based teams should be organized to provide students and teachers with needed support; and (vii) every school should work to eliminate sexual harassment. (8) PARENTAL PARTICIPATION.— (A) By the year 2000, every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children. (B) The objectives for this Goal are that— (i) every State will develop policies to assist local schools and 367 local educational agencies to establish programs for increasing partnerships that respond to the varying needs of parents and the home, including parents of children who are disadvantaged or bilingual, or parents of children with disabilities; (ii) every school will actively engage parents and families in a partnership which supports the academic work of children at home and shared educational decisionmaking at school; and (iii) parents and families will help to ensure that schools are adequately supported and will hold schools and teachers to high standards of accountability. (H.R. 1804 §102) National Goals Panel According to Goals 2000, the National Goals Panel: (a) IN GENERAL.—The Goals Panel shall— (1) report to the President, the Secretary, and the Congress regarding the progress the Nation and the States are making toward achieving the National Education Goals established under title I of this Act, including issuing an annual report; (2) report on State opportunity-to-learn standards and strategies and the progress of States that are implementing such standards and strategies to help all students meet State content standards and State student performance standards; (3) submit to the President nominations for appointment to the National Education Standards and Improvement Council in accordance with subsections (b) and (c) of section 212; (4) after taking into consideration the public comments received pursuant to section 216 and not later than 90 days after receipt, review the— (A) criteria developed by the National Education Standards and Improvement Council for the certification of State content standards, State student performance standards, State assessments, and State opportunity-to-learn standards; and (B) voluntary national content standards, voluntary national student performance standards and voluntary national opportunity-to-learn standards certified by the National Education Standards and Improvement Council, except that the Goals Panel shall have the option of disapproving such criteria and standards by a two-thirds majority vote of the membership of the Goals Panel not later than 90 days after receipt of such criteria and standards; (5) report on promising or effective actions being taken at the national, State, and local levels, and in the public and private sectors, to achieve the National Education Goals; and (6) help build a nationwide, bipartisan consensus for the reforms necessary to achieve the National Education Goals. (b) REPORT.— (1) IN GENERAL.—The Goals Panel shall annually prepare 368 and submit to the President, the Secretary, the appropriate committees of Congress, and the Governor of each State a report that shall— (A) report on the progress of the United States toward achieving the National Education Goals; (B) identify actions that should be taken by Federal, State, and local governments to enhance progress toward achieving the National Education Goals and to provide all students with a fair opportunity-to-learn; and (C) report on State opportunity-to-learn standards and strategies and the progress of States that are implementing such standards and strategies to help all students meet State content standards and State student performance standards. (2) FORM; DATA.—Reports shall be presented in a form, and include data, that is understandable to parents and the general public. (H.R. 1804 § 203) National Skills Standards Board The National Skills Board was eliminated in the repeal of Goals 2000: Educate America Act by the 105th Congress. However, Goals 2000 defined the National Skills Standards Board as: It is the purpose of this title to establish a National Skill Standards Board to serve as a catalyst in stimulating the development and adoption of a voluntary national system of skill standards and of assessment and certification of attainment of skill standards— (1) that will serve as a cornerstone of the national strategy to enhance workforce skills; (2) that will result in increased productivity, economic growth, and American economic competitiveness; and (3) that can be used, consistent with civil rights laws— (A) by the Nation, to ensure the development of a high skills, high quality, high performance workforce, including the most skilled frontline workforce in the world; (B) by industries, as a vehicle for informing training providers and prospective employees of skills necessary for employment; (C) by employers, to assist in evaluating the skill levels of prospective employees and to assist in the training of current employees; (D) by labor organizations, to enhance the employment security of workers by providing portable credentials and skills; (E) by workers, to— (i) obtain certifications of their skills to protect against dislocation; (ii) pursue career advancement; and (iii) enhance their ability to reenter the workforce; 369 (F) by students and entry level workers, to determine the skill levels and competencies needed to be obtained in order to compete effectively for high wage jobs; (G) by training providers and educators, to determine appropriate training services to offer; (H) by government, to evaluate whether publicly funded training assists participants to meet skill standards where such standards exist and thereby protect the integrity of public expenditures; (I) to facilitate the transition to high performance work organizations; (J) to increase opportunities for minorities and women, including removing barriers to the entry of women into nontraditional employment; and (K) to facilitate linkages between other components of the national strategy to enhance workforce skills, including school-to-work transition, secondary and postsecondary vocational-technical education, and job training programs. (H.R. 1804 § 502) New Generation of American Schools: According to the USDE (1991) the New Generation of American Schools is: A major nationwide effort to invent and create 535+ schools by 1996 (and many more thereafter) that are the best in the world .Located in AMERICA 2000 Communities, these schools will reach the national education goals at operational costs not exceeding those of conventional schools. (p. 37) According to NCLB, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: ‘‘The purpose of this title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments. This purpose can be accomplished by— ‘‘(1) ensuring that high-quality academic assessments, accountability systems, teacher preparation and training, curriculum, and instructional materials are aligned with challenging State academic standards so that students, teachers, common expectations for student academic achievement; ‘‘(2) meeting the educational needs of low-achieving children in our Nation’s highest-poverty schools, limited English proficient children, migratory children, children with disabilities, Indian children, neglected or delinquent children, and young children in need of reading assistance; ‘‘(3) closing the achievement gap between high- and lowperforming children, especially the achievement gaps between minority and nonminority students, and between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers; No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): 370 ‘‘(4) holding schools, local educational agencies, and States accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students, and identifying and turning around low-performing schools that have failed to provide a high-quality education to their students, while providing alternatives to students in such schools to enable the students to receive a high-quality education; ‘‘(5) distributing and targeting resources sufficiently to make a difference to local educational agencies and schools where needs are greatest; ‘‘(6) improving and strengthening accountability, teaching, and learning by using State assessment systems designed to ensure that students are meeting challenging State academic achievement and content standards and increasing achievement overall, but especially for the disadvantaged; ‘‘(7) providing greater decisionmaking authority and flexibility to schools and teachers in exchange for greater responsibility for student performance; ‘‘(8) providing children an enriched and accelerated educational program, including the use of schoolwide programs or additional services that increase the amount and quality of instructional time; ‘‘(9) promoting schoolwide reform and ensuring the access of children to effective, scientifically based instructional strategies and challenging academic content; ‘‘(10) significantly elevating the quality of instruction by providing staff in participating schools with substantial opportunities for professional development; ‘‘(11) coordinating services under all parts of this title with each other, with other educational services, and, to the extent feasible, with other agencies providing services to youth, children, and families; and ‘‘(12) affording parents substantial and meaningful opportunities to participate in the education of their children. (20 U.S.C. § 6301) Out of Field Teacher: According to NCLB an out of field teacher: ‘‘(5) OUT-OF-FIELD TEACHER.—The term ‘out-of-field teacher’ means a teacher who is teaching an academic subject or a grade level for which the teacher is not highly qualified. (20 U.S.C. § 6602(5)) 371 Outcome Based Education According to Stedman and Riddle (1998) Outcome Based Education is: A term that was initially used in education research and policy literature to describe a general approach to instruction, assessment, and accountability that focuses on what knowledge or skills pupils have mastered, measured with respect to challenging goals and standards, rather than a more traditional emphasis on the length of time that pupils have been exposed to certain instruction. (p. 25) Paraprofessionals: According to NCLB paraprofessionals: ‘‘(c) NEW PARAPROFESSIONALS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each local educational agency receiving assistance under this part shall ensure that all paraprofessionals hired after the date of enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and working in a program supported with funds under this part shall have— ‘‘(A) completed at least 2 years of study at an institution of higher education; ‘‘(B) obtained an associate’s (or higher) degree; or ‘‘(C) met a rigorous standard of quality and can demonstrate, through a formal State or local academic assessment— ‘‘(i) knowledge of, and the ability to assist in instructing, reading, writing, and mathematics; or ‘‘(ii) knowledge of, and the ability to assist in instructing, reading readiness, writing readiness, and mathematics readiness, as appropriate. ‘‘(2) CLARIFICATION.—The receipt of a secondary school diploma (or its recognized equivalent) shall be necessary but not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (1)(C). ‘‘(d) EXISTING PARAPROFESSIONALS.—Each local educational agency receiving assistance under this part shall ensure that all paraprofessionals hired before the date of enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and working in a program supported with funds under this part shall, not later than 4 years after the date of enactment satisfy the requirements of subsection (c). ‘‘(e) EXCEPTIONS FOR TRANSLATION AND PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES.—Subsections (c) and (d) shall not apply to a paraprofessional— ‘‘(1) who is proficient in English and a language other than English and who provides services primarily to enhance the participation of children in programs under this part by acting as a translator; or ‘‘(2) whose duties consist solely of conducting parental involvement activities consistent with section 1118. ‘‘(f) GENERAL REQUIREMENT FOR ALL 372 PARAPROFESSIONALS.— Each local educational agency receiving assistance under this part shall ensure that all paraprofessionals working in a program supported with funds under this part, regardless of the paraprofessionals’ hiring date, have earned a secondary school diploma or its recognized equivalent. ‘‘(g) DUTIES OF PARAPROFESSIONALS.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each local educational agency receiving assistance under this part shall ensure that a paraprofessional working in a program supported with funds under this part is not assigned a duty inconsistent with this subsection. ‘‘(2) RESPONSIBILITIES PARAPROFESSIONALS MAY BE ASSIGNED.—A paraprofessional described in paragraph (1) may be assigned— ‘‘(A) to provide one-on-one tutoring for eligible students, if the tutoring is scheduled at a time when a student would not otherwise receive instruction from a teacher; ‘‘(B) to assist with classroom management, such as organizing instructional and other materials; ‘‘(C) to provide assistance in a computer laboratory; ‘‘(D) to conduct parental involvement activities; ‘‘(E) to provide support in a library or media center; ‘‘(F) to act as a translator; or ‘‘(G) to provide instructional services to students in accordance with paragraph (3). ‘‘(3) ADDITIONAL LIMITATIONS.—A paraprofessional described in paragraph (1)— ‘‘(A) may not provide any instructional service to a student unless the paraprofessional is working under the direct supervision of a teacher consistent with section 1119;and ‘‘(B) may assume limited duties that are assigned to similar personnel who are not working in a program supported with funds under this part, including duties beyond classroom instruction or that do not benefit participating children, so long as the amount of time spent on such duties is the same proportion of total work time as prevails with respect to similar personnel at the same school. (20 U.S.C. § 6319(c)(1)-(3)) Parent Involvement: According to NCLB, Parent involvement: ‘‘(32) PARENTAL INVOLVEMENT.—The term ‘parental involvement’ means the participation of parents in regular, twoway, and meaningful communication involving student academic learning and other school activities, including ensuring— ‘‘(A) that parents play an integral role in assisting their child’s learning; 373 ‘‘(B) that parents are encouraged to be actively involved in their child’s education at school; ‘‘(C) that parents are full partners in their child’s education and are included, as appropriate, in decisionmaking and on advisory committees to assist in the education of their child; ‘‘(D) the carrying out of other activities, such as those described in section 1118. (20 U.S.C. § 7801(32)(A)-(D)) Performance Standards: According to Goals 2000, performance standards: (9) the term ‘‘performance standards’’ means concrete examples and explicit definitions of what students have to know and be able to do to demonstrate that such students are proficient in the skills and knowledge framed by content standards (H.R. 1804 § 3(a)(9)) According to the USDE (1991), a populist crusade is: A national crusade led by the president school by school, neighborhood by neighborhood, community by community-to transform American education and to spur fundamental changes in the ways we educate ourselves and our children. This crusade also will be a restoration of what we think is important, a return to sound values and community spirit. (p. 37) According to NCLB, ‘‘(34) PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT.—The term ‘professional development’— ‘‘(A) includes activities that— ‘‘(i) improve and increase teachers’ knowledge of the academic subjects the teachers teach, and enable teachers to become highly qualified; ‘‘(ii) are an integral part of broad schoolwide and districtwide educational improvement plans; ‘‘(iii) give teachers, principals, and administrators the knowledge and skills to provide students with the opportunity to meet challenging State academic content standards and student academic achievement standards; ‘‘(iv) improve classroom management skills; ‘‘(v)(I) are high quality, sustained, intensive, and classroomfocused in order to have a positive and lasting impact on classroom instruction and the teacher’s performance in the classroom; and ‘‘(II) are not 1-day or short-term workshops or conferences; ‘‘(vi) support the recruiting, hiring, and training of highly qualified teachers, including teachers who became highly qualified through State and local alternative routes to Populist Crusade: Professional Development 374 certification; ‘‘(vii) advance teacher understanding of effective instructional strategies that are— ‘‘(I) based on scientifically based research (except that this subclause shall not apply to activities carried out under part D of title II); and ‘‘(II) strategies for improving student academic achievement or substantially increasing the knowledge and teaching skills of teachers; and ‘‘(viii) are aligned with and directly related to— ‘‘(I) State academic content standards, student academic achievement standards, and assessments; and ‘‘(II) the curricula and programs tied to the standards described in subclause (I) except that this subclause shall not apply to activities described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 2123(3)(B); ‘‘(ix) are developed with extensive participation of teachers, principals, parents, and administrators of schools to be served under this Act; ‘‘(x) are designed to give teachers of limited English proficient children, and other teachers and instructional staff, the knowledge and skills to provide instruction and appropriate language and academic support services to those children, including the appropriate use of curricula and assessments; ‘‘(xi) to the extent appropriate, provide training for teachers and principals in the use of technology so that technology and technology applications are effectively used in the classroom to improve teaching and learning in the curricula and core academic subjects in which the teachers teach; ‘‘(xii) as a whole, are regularly evaluated for their impact on increased teacher effectiveness and improved student academic achievement, with the findings of the evaluations used to improve the quality of professional development; ‘‘(xiii) provide instruction in methods of teaching children with special needs; ‘‘(xiv) include instruction in the use of data and assessments to inform and instruct classroom practice; and ‘‘(xv) include instruction in ways that teachers, principals, pupil services personnel, and school administrators may work more effectively with parents; and ‘‘(B) may include activities that— ‘‘(i) involve the forming of partnerships with institutions of higher education to establish schoolbased teacher training programs that provide prospective teachers and beginning teachers with an opportunity to work under the guidance of experienced teachers and college faculty; ‘‘(ii) create programs to enable paraprofessionals (assisting 375 R & D Teams: teachers employed by a local educational agency receiving assistance under part A of title I) to obtain the education necessary for those paraprofessionals to become certified and licensed teachers; and ‘‘(iii) provide follow-up training to teachers who have participated in activities described in subparagraph (A) or another clause of this subparagraph that are designed to ensure that the knowledge and skills learned by the teachers are implemented in the classroom (20 U.S.C. § 7801(34)(A)-(B)) According to the USDE (1991) R & D Teams are: Partnerships of corporations, universities, think tanks, school innovators, management consultants and others, selected through a competitive process by the New American Schools Development Corporation to receive up to $30 million each over three years to conceptualize and invent New American Schools. (p. 37) According to 73 Fed. Reg. 64,508, a Regular High School Diploma: (iv) The term ‘‘regular high school diploma’’ means the standard high school diploma that is awarded to students in the State and that is fully aligned with the State’s academic content standards or a higher diploma and does not include a GED credential, certificate of attendance, or any alternative award. (as codified at 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b)(1)(iv)) Regular High School Diploma: Report Cards: According to the USDE (1991) report cards are: A public reporting system on the performance of education institutions and systems, which provides maximum information at the school, district, state and national levels. (p. 37) According to NCLB, restructuring: ‘‘(8) RESTRUCTURING.— ‘‘(A) FAILURE TO MAKE ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS.— If, after 1 full school year of corrective action under paragraph (7), a school subject to such corrective action continues to fail to make adequate yearly progress, then the local educational agency shall— ‘‘(i) continue to provide all students enrolled in the school with the option to transfer to another public school served by the local educational agency, in accordance with paragraph (1)(E) and (F); ‘‘(ii) continue to make supplemental educational services available, in accordance with subsection (e), to children who remain in the school; and Restructuring: 376 ‘‘(iii) prepare a plan and make necessary arrangements to carry out subparagraph (B). ‘‘(B) ALTERNATIVE GOVERNANCE.—Not later than the beginning of the school year following the year in which the local educational agency implements subparagraph (A), the local educational agency shall implement one of the following alternative governance arrangements for the school consistent with State law: ‘‘(i) Reopening the school as a public charter school. ‘‘(ii) Replacing all or most of the school staff (which may include the principal) who are relevant to the failure to make adequate yearly progress. ‘‘(iii) Entering into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company, with a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the public school. ‘‘(iv) Turning the operation of the school over to the State educational agency, if permitted under State law and agreed to by the State. ‘‘(v) Any other major restructuring of the school’s governance arrangement that makes fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school’s staffing and governance, to improve student academic achievement in the school and that has substantial promise of enabling the school to make adequate yearly progress as defined in the State plan under section 1111(b)(2). In the case of a rural local educational agency with a total of less than 600 students in average daily attendance at the schools that are served by the agency and all of whose schools have a School Locale Code of 7 or 8, as determined by the Secretary, the Secretary shall, at such agency’s request, provide technical assistance to such agency for the purpose of implementing this clause. ‘‘(C) PROMPT NOTICE.—The local educational agency shall— ‘‘(i) provide prompt notice to teachers and parents whenever subparagraph (A) or (B) applies; and ‘‘(ii) provide the teachers and parents with an adequate opportunity to— ‘‘(I) comment before taking any action under those subparagraphs; and ‘‘(II) participate in developing any plan under subparagraph (A)(iii). (20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(8)) School Improvement: According to NCLB, School Improvement: ‘‘(A) IDENTIFICATION.—Subject to subparagraph (C), a local educational agency shall identify for school improvement any elementary school or secondary school served under this part 377 that fails, for 2 consecutive years, to make adequate yearly progress as defined in the State’s plan under section 1111(b)(2). (20 U.S.C. § 6316(b)(1)(A)) Schools and LEAS Previously Identified for Improvement: ‘‘(f) SCHOOLS AND LEAS PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED FOR IMPROVEMENT OR CORRECTIVE ACTION.— ‘‘(1) SCHOOLS.— ‘‘(A) SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT.— ‘‘(i) SCHOOLS IN SCHOOL-IMPROVEMENT STATUS BEFORE DATE OF ENACTMENT.—Any school that was in the first year of school improvement status under this section on the day preceding the date of enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (as this section was in effect on such day) shall be treated by the local educational agency as a school that is in the first year of school improvement status under paragraph (1). ‘‘(ii) SCHOOLS IN SCHOOL-IMPROVEMENT STATUS FOR 2 OR MORE YEARS BEFORE DATE OF ENACTMENT.—Any school that was in school improvement status under this section for two or more consecutive school years preceding the date of enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (as this section was in effect on such day) shall be treated by the local educational agency as a school described in subsection (b)(5). ‘‘(B) CORRECTIVE ACTION.—Any school that was in corrective action status under this section on the day preceding the date of enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (as this section was in effect on such day) shall be treated by the local educational agency as a school described in paragraph (7). ‘‘(2) LEAS.— ‘‘(A) LEA IMPROVEMENT.—A State shall identify for improvement under subsection (c)(3) any local educational agency that was in improvement status under this section as this section was in effect on the day preceding the date of enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. ‘‘(B) CORRECTIVE ACTION.—A State shall identify for corrective action under subsection (c)(10) any local educational agency that was in corrective action status under this section as this section was in effect on the day preceding the date of enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. ‘‘(C) SPECIAL RULE.—For the schools and other local educational agencies described under paragraphs (1) and (2), as required, the State shall ensure that public school choice in accordance with subparagraphs (b)(1)(E) and (F) and supplemental education services in accordance with subsection 378 Scientifically Based Research: (e) are provided not later than the first day of the 2002–2003 school year. ‘‘(D) TRANSITION.—With respect to a determination that a local educational agency has for 2 consecutive years failed to make adequate yearly progress as defined in the State plan under section 1111(b)(2), such determination shall include in such 2year period any continuous period of time immediately preceding the date of enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 during which the agency has failed to make progress. According to NCLB scientifically based research: ‘‘(37) SCIENTIFICALLY BASED RESEARCH.—The term ‘scientifically based research’— ‘‘(A) means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs; and ‘‘(B) includes research that— ‘‘(i) employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; ‘‘(ii) involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn; ‘‘(iii) relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and across studies by the same or different investigators; ‘‘(iv) is evaluated using experimental or quasiexperimental designs in which individuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions and with appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a preference for random-assignment experiments, or other designs to the extent that those designs contain within-condition or acrosscondition controls; ‘‘(v) ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically on their findings; and ‘‘(vi) has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review. (20 U.S.C. § 7801(37)(A)-(B)) According to NCLB, a secondary school: ‘‘(38) SECONDARY SCHOOL.—The term ‘secondary school’ means a nonprofit institutional day or residential school, including a public secondary charter school, that provides secondary education, as determined under State law, except that the term does not include any education beyond grade 12. (20 U.S.C. § 7801(38)) Secondary School: 379 State Assessment: According to Goals 2000, a state assessment: (11) the term ‘‘State assessment’’ means measures of student performance which include at least 1 instrument of evaluation, and may include other measures of student performance, for a specific purpose and use which are intended to evaluate the progress of all students in the State toward learning the material in State content standards in 1 or more subject areas. (H.R. 1804 § 3(a)(11)) State Educational Agency: According to NCLB, a State Educational Agency: ‘‘(41) STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY.—The term ‘State educational agency’ means the agency primarily responsible for the State supervision of public elementary schools and secondary schools.(20 U.S.C. § 7801(41)) According to NCLB, supplemental educational services: ‘‘(C) the term ‘supplemental educational services’ means tutoring and other supplemental academic enrichment services that are— ‘‘(i) in addition to instruction provided during the school day; and ‘‘(ii) are of high quality, research-based, and specifically designed to increase the academic achievement of eligible children on the academic assessments required under section 1111 and attain proficiency in meeting the State’s academic achievement standards. (20 U.S.C. § 1116(e)(12)(C) According to NCLB, teacher mentoring: ‘‘(42) TEACHER MENTORING.—The term ‘teacher mentoring’ means activities that— ‘‘(A) consist of structured guidance and regular and ongoing support for teachers, especially beginning teachers, that— ‘‘(i) are designed to help the teachers continue to improve their practice of teaching and to develop their instructional skills; and part of an ongoing developmental induction process— ‘‘(I) involve the assistance of an exemplary teacher and other appropriate individuals from a school, local educational agency, or institution of higher education; and ‘‘(II) may include coaching, classroom observation, team teaching, and reduced teaching loads; and ‘‘(B) may include the establishment of a partnership by a local educational agency with an institution of higher education, another local educational agency, a teacher organization, or another organization.(20 U.S.C. § 7801(42)(A)-(B)) Supplemental Educational Services: Teacher Mentoring: 380 Title I: Throughout this manuscript, Title I is used to refer to Title I, Part A. Parts B, C, and D of Title I that are targeted to specific purposes/populations are referred to by their commonly known program names. ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Each eligible entity using funds provided under this title to provide a language instruction educational program shall, not later than 30 days after the beginning of the school year, inform a parent or the parents of a limited English proficient child identified for participation in, or participating in, such program of— ‘‘(1) the reasons for the identification of their child as limited English proficient and in need of placement in a language instruction educational program; ‘‘(2) the child’s level of English proficiency, how such level was assessed, and the status of the child’s academic achievement; ‘‘(3) the method of instruction used in the program in which their child is, or will be, participating, and the methods of instruction used in other available programs, including how such programs differ in content, instruction goals, and use of English and a native language in instruction; ‘‘(4) how the program in which their child is, or will be participating will meet the educational strengths and needs of the child; ‘‘(5) how such program will specifically help their child learn English, and meet age appropriate academic achievement standards for grade promotion and graduation; ‘‘(6) the specific exit requirements for such program, the expected rate of transition from such program into classrooms that are not tailored for limited English proficient children, and the expected rate of graduation from secondary school for such program if funds under this title are used for children in secondary schools; ‘‘(7) in the case of a child with a disability, how such program meets the objectives of the individualized education program of the child; and ‘‘(8) information pertaining to parental rights that includes written guidance— ‘‘(A) detailing— ‘‘(i) the right that parents have to have their child immediately removed from such program upon their request; and ‘‘(ii) the options that parents have to decline to enroll their child in such program or to choose another program or method of instruction, if available; and ‘‘(B) assisting parents in selecting among various programs and methods of instruction, if more than one program or method is Title III Parent Notification: 381 offered by the eligible entity. ‘‘(b) SEPARATE NOTIFICATION.—In addition to providing the information required to be provided under subsection (a), each eligible entity that is using funds provided under this title to provide a language instruction educational program, and that has failed to make progress on the annual measurable achievement objectives described in section 3122 for any fiscal year for which part A is in effect, shall separately inform a parent or the parents of a child identified for participation in such program, or participating in such program, of such failure not later than 30 days after such failure occurs. ‘‘(c) RECEIPT OF INFORMATION.—The information required to be provided under subsections (a) and (b) to a parent shall be provided in an understandable and uniform format and, to the extent practicable, in a language that the parent can understand. ‘‘(d) SPECIAL RULE APPLICABLE DURING SCHOOL YEAR.—For a child who has not been identified for participation in a language instruction educational program prior to the beginning of the school year, the eligible entity shall carry out subsections (a) through (c) with respect to the parents of the child within 2 weeks of the child being placed in such a program.(20 U.S.C. §7012(a)-(d)) Title III Parent Participation ‘‘(e) PARENTAL PARTICIPATION.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Each eligible entity using funds provided under this title to provide a language instruction educational program shall implement an effective means of outreach to parents of limited English proficient children to inform such parents of how they can— ‘‘(A) be involved in the education of their children; and ‘‘(B) be active participants in assisting their children— ‘‘(i) to learn English; ‘‘(ii) to achieve at high levels in core academic subjects; and ‘‘(iii) to meet the same challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards as all children are expected to meet ‘‘(2) RECEIPT OF RECOMMENDATIONS.—The outreach described in paragraph (1) shall include holding, and sending notice of opportunities for, regular meetings for the purpose of formulating and responding to recommendations from parents described in such paragraph (20 U.S.C. §7012(a)-(d)) 382 Transitional Graduation Rate: According to 73 Fed. Reg. 64,509, a Transitional Graduation Rate: (2) Transitional graduation rate. (i) Prior to the deadline in paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) of this section, a State must calculate graduation rate as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or use, on a transitional basis— (A) A graduation rate that measures the percentage of students from the beginning of high school who graduate with a regular high school diploma in the standard number of years; or (B) Another definition, developed by the State and approved by the Secretary, that more accurately measures the rate of student graduation from high school with a regular high school diploma. (ii) For a transitional graduation rate calculated under paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section— (A) ‘‘Regular high school diploma’’ has the same meaning as in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section; (B) ‘‘Standard number of years’’ means four years unless a high school begins after ninth grade, in which case the standard number of years is the number of grades in the school; and (C) A dropout may not be counted as a transfer. (as codified at 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b)(v)(B)(2)) According to the USDE (1991) world class standards are: Definitions of what American students should be expected to know and be able to do upon completion of schooling, meant to function as benchmarks against which student and school performance can be measured.(p. 38) World Class Standards: 383 Appendix B Focus Group Recruitment Script and Protocol Recruitments will take place at the principals’ staff meeting, faculty meetings, respective department meetings, and on an individual basis 2 weeks in advance of a scheduled focus group meeting. Two weeks before each recruitment, secure permission from the administration or department chairperson to do a 15-minute presentation. Use the abbreviated dissertation proposal PowerPoint for talking points. Please follow each step precisely to ensure that each focus group hears the same information. State the following information: 1)State: “Thank you for the opportunity to share with you some information and invite you to participate in important educational research. I am conducting research related to No Child Left Behind implementation in urban schools. Today I will briefly tell you what this research will involve and the benefits, risks, and incentives of your participation.” 2) State: “Current research has shown that NCLB implementation in urban schools is proving problematic. The literature raises concerns that in urban schools NCLB implementation is affecting educational choice and equity, teacher preparation and autonomy, and the interests of students and communities. Unfortunately, most of the research is opinion-based or quantitative, meaning it only examines numbers. I am planning focus group research that involves group interviews where 6 to 8 people come together and discuss the topic of NCLB implementation here at our school” 3) State: “In fulfillment of requirements towards a doctorate of Education at UC Irvine and Cal State Los Angeles, I am hoping to contribute to the body of NCLB research in urban schools by providing the missing piece to the current dialogue surrounding NCLB implementation, the voice of urban educators, administrators, and counseling staff.” 4) State: “Your participation in this project has limited risks to you because the school is anonymous in the report and results will be reported in the form of themes and not individually identifiable responses. Video and audio Recordings of the proceedings will be destroyed following transcription and your name will not be connected to any comments you make. The focus group meeting will require approximately 90 minutes of your time and will be conducted at the end of this month or next month in Room 246 from 3:00-4:30 but the focus group may extend until 5:00 depending on the conversation. Not only will the data from your participation benefit policymakers and fellow educators alike, each participant will receive a 20 dollar gift card and a social action toolkit for contacting our state and national representatives.” 5) State: “I welcome participants who meet the following criteria: (a) employed here on site for 3 or more years, (b) has daily student contact, and (c) is employed here as a teacher, administrator, or counselor. (refer to PowerPoint Slide) Please take a moment to fill out this brief focus group interest survey and indicate if you are interested in participating in the upcoming focus group [Read aloud each question on the survey and clarify any questions]. If you have indicated you are interested. I will contact you in the coming days with an informed consent form and more information in order to confirm that you have been selected for participation. Thank you greatly for your time and your input.” (Collect interest surveys) 384 Two days after the initial recruitment presentation, contact potential participants after reviewing the interest surveys by drawing surveys randomly from a hat and attempting to confirm participation. At least 3 days before the focus group meeting is scheduled, send out reminders to participants. 385 Appendix C Focus Group Interest Survey ___________________________ Teacher Last Name, First Name ____________ Room Number ____________________ Department Please circle one response for each item. 1. How long have you worked at this school site? 0 – 2 Years 3 – 5 years 6 – 8 years 9+ years If you selected 0-2 years, you are ineligible for participation please do not continue. 2. Do you have daily contact with students? Yes No If you selected “No,” you are ineligible for participation please do not continue. 3. In what capacity do you work with students? Teacher (in the Teacher (out of the Administrator Counselor classroom) classroom) If you selected none of the above, you are ineligible for participation please do not continue. 4. What is your gender? Male Female 5. What is your age? 20 - 25 Years 26 - 30 years 31 - 35 years 6. What is your ethnicity? African-American/ Black Asian/ Pacific Islander 36 - 40 years Caucasian/ White 41 + years Hispanic/ Latino Other___________________________ (please specify) 7. Are you interested in participating in a focus group about NCLB implementation in urban schools? Yes No If you selected “No,” please do not continue. Thank you for your interest. 8. Please circle at least three days you are available between the hours of 3:00-4:30 for focus group participation at the end of this month or next month. Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Please return to Ms. Lee – Thank you for your consideration! If you are selected as a participant, you will be contacted in the coming days. 386 Appendix D Focus Group Interview Protocol Preliminary Participants in this focus group were selected from a pool of urban teachers in Los Angeles Unified School District (District 5). It is anticipated that each focus group will have 6-8 participants, as this is the ideal size for non-commercial focus group designs. The interviews will be conducted in a classroom at UMS due to its central location in the District and the familiarity of the classroom setting. Interviewee responses will be recorded using both digital visual and audio recording; a combination of video and audio capturing will be used to review and revisit participant reactions and dynamics that would not otherwise be apparent when relying on traditional, singular recording methods. The video and audio focus group proceedings will be reviewed and transcribed within 2-3 hours of the meeting in order to maintain immediacy so that descriptive and interpretive notes can be taken. Dual recording of the proceedings will help ensure that the focus group leader (FGL) is fully present as a participant in the focus group and able to moderate the discussion as well as maintain the flow of discussion. Protocol Arrive one hour early to arrange the seats in the classroom in fishbowl format and set up the digital video and audio recorders. Test each recorder to ensure that sound quality is acceptable. Set out refreshments including water and cookies near sign in sheets. State the items listed as FGL verbatim. Ensure that there are extra copies of the informed consent forms available so that they can be distributed if needed. If a particular person is dominating the discussion, state, “Thank you, does anyone else have a similar experience or something they would like to add?” Greeting and Introduction FGL: Hello my name is__________________, and I will act as the moderator for today’s focus group. Thank you for agreeing to participate in this focus group regarding teacher perceptions of the implementation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in urban schools. We hope to share viewpoints about your experiences with how NCLB has impacted urban teachers and students in terms of educational choice and equity, teacher professionalism and autonomy, and the interests of students and communities. We anticipate that this focus group will take about 1.5-2 hours of your time. Thank you for participating. Consent FGL: Consent forms were provided to you along with the invitation to participate in this focus group. If you have already filled out the consent form, please submit it to me now. If you need a form, please raise your hand. [distribute forms to those who need them and be sure to collect a signed form from each person]. Remember, your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw from the focus group at any time without penalty. The focus group video and audio recordings will not be made public, they will be destroyed following transcription and no comments will be attributed to you personally when the results are reported in my dissertation. 387 Guidelines FGL: The purpose of this focus group is to share opinions. Some opinions may differ from your own. I ask that we maintain professional collegiality and civility at all times. There is no need to raise your hand to speak, but only one person should speak at a time in order to ensure that all voices are heard. Questions/Probes Allow ample time for discussion of each question/probe (try not to exceed 15 minutes per question). Select or create additional questions as determined by the organic flow of the conversation. Use the subquestions listed under each item only to spur on the conversation or if it seems participants need elaboration for the question. FGL: I would first like to open the floor for participants to state their opinions or experiences about how NCLB implementation is affecting students and teachers at this school. When you hear the words “No Child Left Behind” what comes to mind? Accountability is the latest buzz word. In your opinion has accountability thus far in NCLB implementation been evenly shared among all stakeholders? Please explain. In what ways have NCLB implementation affected educational choice and equity? o For example, what is it like to be a teacher at a school that is labeled as “failing”? o For example, in your opinion do students have more or less educational choices? o For example, how has NCLB implementation affected what you do in your classroom on a daily basis? o For example is there more or less access to instructional equity now? In what ways has NCLB implementation affected teacher professionalism and autonomy? o For example, how has your view of yourself as a teaching professional changed since NCLB implementation? o Think back to what attracted you to teaching. How has this changed in light of NCLB mandates and requirements? o For example, how has your view of yourself as a teaching professional changed since NCLB implementation? o When you hear the term “highly qualified teacher” what comes to mind? o What experiences do you have with the “highly qualified teacher” components of NCLB? o What are your views about District pacing plans and periodic assessments? o For example, in your opinion, how has the public view of teachers changed since implementation? o For example, in your opinion, has teacher autonomy increased or decreased since implementation? o What advice would you give a new teacher just coming into the profession under NCLB? 388 In what ways has NCLB implementation impacted the interests of students and communities? o For example, how have the testing policies implemented as a result of NCLB impacted student motivation to learn? o For example, how has NCLB implementation impacted student scheduling? If you could share your thoughts with policymakers regarding how NCLB implementation has affected teachers and students in Urban Schools, what would you tell them? Have we missed anything or is there anything we should have discussed but didn’t? Closing FGL: Thank you for your participation in this focus group. I appreciate your time. The findings of this research will be shared with the entire faculty as soon as the research is completed. As you exit, please be sure to pick up your gift bag with a token of my appreciation for your valuable input. If you have any additional questions about this meeting, please feel free to stop by and ask at any time. Restore the classroom to its original condition, secure audio/visual equipment, and begin transcription of the focus group proceedings. 389 Appendix E Observational Field Notes Template Focus Group___________ Length of Activity______________ Date_____________ Location: UMS Moderator: t. lee Code Descriptive Notes (Description of Physical Setting, Portraits of Subjects, Reconstruction of Dialogue, Accounts of particular events, Depictions of activities, The observer’s behavior) Reflective Notes (Emerging Themes/Patterns, Feelings, Problems, Ideas, hunches, impressions, prejudices, ethical dilemmas/conflicts, confessions) 1. 2. 3. Sketch of Location 390 Appendix F Follow-Up Interview Protocol Preliminary Participants in the follow-up interviews were selected from departmentalized focus groups that occurred in the fall of 2008. Participants in this focus group were selected from a pool of urban teachers in Los Angeles Unified School District (District 5). Participants indicated their willingness to participate in follow-up interviews during informal verbal exit surveys or they were solicited for follow-up interviews based on the nature of the comments they offered during the focus group sessions. The interviews will be conducted in a classroom at UMS due to its central location in the District and the familiarity of the classroom setting. Interviewee responses will be recorded using audio recording. The audio follow-up interview proceedings will be reviewed and transcribed within 2-3 hours of the meeting in order to maintain immediacy so that descriptive and interpretive notes can be taken. Audio recording of the proceedings will help ensure that the Follow Up Interviewer (FUI) is fully present as a participant in the dialogue. Protocol Arrive one hour early to arrange the seats in the classroom and set up the digital audio recorder. Test each recorder to ensure that sound quality is acceptable. State the items listed as FUI verbatim. The questions/probes listed here are generalized, however, you must create or add additional probes/questions to be determined by the organic flow of information in the follow-up interview. Greeting and Introduction FUI: Thank you for agreeing to participate in this follow-up interview related to teacher perceptions of the implementation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in urban schools. We hope to hear elaborations about your viewpoints and experiences with how NCLB has impacted urban teachers and students in terms of educational choice and equity, teacher professionalism and autonomy, and the interests of students and communities. I would also like to hear your opinion about themes that I saw emerging from the focus group meeting. We anticipate that this follow-up interview will take about 30-45 minutes of your time. Thank you for participating. Consent FUI: Thank you for filling out your consent form at the focus group meeting. Remember, your participation is voluntary and you may withdraw from this follow-up interview at any time without penalty. The interview audio recordings will not be made public and will be destroyed following transcription; no comments will be attributed to you personally when the results are reported in my dissertation. Guidelines FUI: The purpose of this follow up interview is to hear more about your thoughts and experiences regarding NCLB implementation in urban schools and to hear your opinions of the tentative themes I’ve identified from our focus group session. 391 Questions/Probes Allow ample time for discussion of each question/probe (try not to exceed 15 minutes per question). Select or create additional questions as determined by the organic flow of the conversation. Use the subquestions listed under each item only to spur on the conversation or if it seems participants need elaboration for the question. FUI: What are some additional experiences or thoughts you have about NCLB implementation that you were unable to share during the focus group session? One theme I have identified from our discussion was ________[state theme and rationale]_______. Do you feel this is an accurate representation of the conversation we held? (Confirm each of the issues/themes identified on the reliability matrix thus far by the researcher) o How would you change the theme to be more descriptive or inclusive of all voices? o Do you think there were subthemes imbedded in the theme I have identified that are significant enough to list as their own theme? If you could share your thoughts with policymakers regarding how NCLB implementation has affected teachers and students in Urban Schools, what would you tell them? Closing FUI: Thank you for your participation in this focus group and follow-up interviews. I appreciate your time. The findings of this research will be shared with the entire faculty as soon as the research is completed. If you have any additional questions about this research, please feel free to stop by and ask at any time. Restore the classroom to its original condition, secure audio/visual equipment, and begin transcription of the follow-up interview proceedings. 392